I find myself asking this question after hearing virtually any policy statement at all from this utterly corrupt and shameful 'administration'.
“How is any of this Constitutional? Why isn’t this being challenged in the courts?”
Megan McArdle had another pithy comment: “But if we want to bail out GM, we should pony up out of the income tax, not cast about for the least popular group we can find. That’s no way to run a tax code, or an economy.”
This epitomizes Obama’s approach to everything. He wants a universal health plan that allegedly benefits everyone, but wants to exempt everyone except “the rich” from having to pay for it. He’s discovering he actually can’t achieve this objective, so he’s trying to hide the extent to which his plan actually will raise taxes or costs on those who aren’t “rich.” But the general principle is the same: he’s promising $1 trillion in goodies to the masses and claiming it will get bankrolled by a small minority who can afford it.
With the banks, he makes it look as if the “fat cats” are paying, when in fact it’s the little guy getting screwed. Either he himself is appallingly ignorant of Econ 101 [a hypothesis not yet disproved IMHO] or he knowingly and cynically is counting on voter ignorance/apathy to get away with populist policies that make great sound bites but cannot withhold critical scrutiny in terms of how they play out in the real world. This is not leadership: it is demagoguery.