Posted on 04/19/2011 7:48:23 PM PDT by Red Steel
After watching President Barack Obama’s response to Congressional Republicans’ proposals for cutting the federal deficit, it’s awfully hard to credit either side with being serious about finding a viable legislative compromise.
In his speech on fiscal policy at George Washington University on Wednesday, the president talked about the need to reduce the federal deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes, placing most of the blame for the deficit on his predecessor, President George W. Bush.
But Obama used the words “raising taxes” only once in a speech that ran more than 5,700 words. And when he used it, it was in the context of referring to Republicans who argue “we should not even consider ever — ever — raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans.”
Instead, the president repeatedly used odd and misleading constructions such as “reduce spending in the tax code,” “tax expenditures,” “spending on things like itemized deductions,” “reducing tax expenditures” and “more spending reductions in the tax code” when he talked about the need to raise additional revenue through taxes.
Maybe that is why I was so surprised to see Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. write appreciatively the next day that Obama “was willing to speak plainly about raising taxes.” Plainly? Not unless you come from Planet Bureaucratic Double-Talk.
If the president believes that raising taxes is an important part of the discussion to close the federal deficit — and he and many others certainly do — then shouldn’t we expect him to talk plainly about doing so instead of resorting to euphemisms or political mumbo-jumbo?
When Obama talked about health care and entitlements in his speech, he did so by tossing around platitudes and generalities.
He said he would “build” on the new health care law by reducing “wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments” and by demanding “more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid.” Right about now a red light should be flashing, and a buzzer sounding in your head.
Obama promised to “slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission ... [that] will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need.” In other words, he’ll punt.
But his comments about Medicare and Medicaid seemed detailed and complicated compared to his proposals on Social Security. The 98-word paragraph he devoted to Social Security was simply a restatement of the need for bipartisan cooperation to strengthen the program.
The president deserves credit for understanding the seriousness of the deficit and debt threat facing the country, but he hasn’t shown the kind of leadership that presidents need to show. Until he does, it’s hard to believe that he’s serious about addressing the problem.
Congressional Republicans also appreciate the problem, and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has offered a more dramatic, detailed solution.
But many Republicans don’t seem to understand the nature of compromise necessary in a presidential system where power is divided between the two political parties.
Too many Republicans insist that any tax increases are off the table. “Americans are not under-taxed,” they argue, “the government spends too much.”
Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t. But it really doesn’t matter, since that’s not the issue.
The issue is whether most Congressional Republicans understand that ruling out any and all means for generating additional revenue — we call that “raising taxes” on this planet — makes it impossible to arrive at a compromise with Democrats, who have very different views of the role of government and who hold both the Senate and the White House.
For Democrats, raising taxes to produce additional revenue is preferable to many spending cuts.
Whether Republican Members of Congress agree with them is irrelevant. The nature of our system requires legislators to support spending and some policies that they don’t necessarily like. It’s the art of the deal.
For Republicans to refuse to consider an entire strategy for dealing with the deficit and debt precludes any kind of compromise — and any kind of deal, at least until they hold the White House, a House majority and at least 60 seats in the Senate.
Unless they are willing to negotiate with the president and Congressional Democrats, Republicans aren’t serious about attacking the deficit.
I should add that some Congressional Republicans are serious. Senators such as Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), neither of whom are on the 2012 ballot, understand that everything has to be on the table — even alternatives they really don’t like — if they are to have any chance of arriving at an agreement with Democrats.
The president needs to show a lot more leadership and Congressional Republicans need to show a lot more flexibility to tackle this problem.
Only when both the folks on the uncompromising left and the uncompromising right start to scream bloody murder will you know that the two parties are serious about getting the nation back on a firm financial footing.
Obama is not serious in cutting the federal deficient or debt.
Barack Obama has brought demagoguery and dishonesty to the budget debate. In context his speech without a plan attacks the only written vision as follows:
“We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or repair roads and bridges”
“We can’t afford the America we believe in”
“Our roads crumble and our bridges collapse”
“It ends Medicare as we know it”
“Their vision is….about changing the basic social compact in America”
“spending a trillion dollars on new tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires”
“Reforms we passed in health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion”
“Cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code”
“50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit”
However, there is ample motivation for him to engage in these capricious, threadbare assaults. The Republicans who entered this Congress campaigned on the idea they would immediately cut the budget by $100 billion. Instead the Congressional Budget Office calculates the deal this week will lower the spending for FY 2011 by a mere $352 million. Clearly he and the Democrats in Congress faced no adversaries when arguments could have included:
Balanced scoring for the health care law shows over a $1 trillion increase in the deficit
There is no spending in the tax code unless one begins with the assumption all income belongs to the federal government, and the ruling class decides that portion to grant citizens.
Money is never spent on tax cuts for the wealthy, but tax revenue collected increases since rates are presently too high. Wealthy people receive greater incentive for productive economic activity and pay more taxes.
Increase in tax rates for the wealthy are offset by manipulation of tax code provisions. Therefore, future Kennedy’s become multi-millionaires without ever producing.
The new health care law ends Medicare as we know it. Any savings promised will occur simply because the government refuses to pay the cost. Peter Singer (Princeton bioethics professor) says in NYT, “Rationing health care means getting value for the billions spent by setting limits on which treatments should be paid from the public purse …. That suggests saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-olds”. The primary directive for Obama’s “independent commission” will identify treatments available to seniors under newly adopted guidelines that the care must be cost effective.
There have already been over 1,000 exemptions from the new health care law, because it decreed millions of Americans would otherwise lose their insurance.
How is the GOP going to reach a compromise with Mr. Obama-- who does not really want to reduce spending--and then spends his time demonizing the GOP with slanders about their budget plans? Somehow, it's still their fault, right?
Scary thing is it’s 90% bashing GOP and very little coming out of Boehner back at the President.
Seems like the Republican congress is willing to allow Obama to define them
LLS
LLS
Worse than that, additional revenue, if indeed increased taxes produce any, would give the Demonrats license to go on another spending spree if they had the House.They, and 0bummer, literally can't control themselves.
They aren’t serious, because the American people aren’t serious.
If Americans, by and large, were demanding something be done, it would have been done.
BO - America’s First Juvenile President
For the love of Pete when is someone in the GOP going to call the President’s bluff on this “going back to the Clinton era tax rates” business?
The next thing I want to hear from the GOP is that we will accept 1992 tax rates if the President will accept 1992 spending levels.
His arguments are childish as they are idiotic and could be destroyed by my 12 year old. I’m tired of the GOP sitting on their hands when the President makes these arguments that were obviously thought up by the Chicago Neanderthals who are making this President’s mouth move.
Geezzzz.
“...Maybe that is why I was so surprised to see Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. write appreciatively the next day that Obama “was willing to speak plainly about raising taxes.” Plainly? Not unless you come from Planet Bureaucratic Double-Talk.
If the president believes that raising taxes is an important part of the discussion to close the federal deficit — and he and many others certainly do — then shouldn’t we expect him to talk plainly about doing so instead of resorting to euphemisms or political mumbo-jumbo?”
—Amazing that Mr. Rothenberg has been covering Obama for years now, and he still hasn’t picked up on the fact that almost every word out of POTUS’ mouth is a dodge or a distortion.
ROTFLMAO at the future tense applied to the powers-that-be’s de facto bankruptcy.
My take on this is naturally slightly different than the conservative Rush position. It's not that there cant be tax increases designed to generate more revenue without crushing the economy. The problem as we have seen many times before is that the Federal government, both parties when they are in the WH, will naturally spend more and more as time goes on. Any tax increase for spending cut deal such are the gang of 6 is considering will just end up with the tax increases and no long term spending cuts, as with Bush Sr's deal in 1990.
Heck, just look at the Boehner-Obama FY11 budget $40B cut/deficit reduction bill that only cuts ~$500 million, less than 1/8th advertized. That should tell you how it would end up.
It's like giving your gamble-holic son $20K in cash to pay off the loan shark so he doesnt get his arm broke, the son will always try to double that money in another game before he reaches the loan shark. Best to give him a plane ticket instead, but hand it to the airlines youself.
Obama’s not serious about honesty.
>>They aren’t serious, because the American people aren’t serious.
If Americans, by and large, were demanding something be done, it would have been done.<<
We’ve marched on Versailles on the Potomac, we’ve screamed at our “elected representatives” in town hall meetings, we’ve melted the switchboards and they STILL refuse to listen. What’s left, the cartridge box?
Obama said Yesterday at his town Hall he wants to live in a Country that is Fair,go ahead and Find it then Move there Mr. Camelot Redux,Except in the Words of Your Mr. Camelot 1,John F. Kennedy,”Life Is Not Fair” so deal with it Putz
Some have, but not most. At best, perhaps about 20 percent have varying levels of concern about the debt, with maybe half of that being very concerned.
it is going to take a revolution, or close to it, to get the politicians to do more than window dress the debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.