Posted on 09/10/2011 9:44:42 AM PDT by neverdem
Barack Obama looked and sounded angry in his speech to the joint session of Congress. He bitterly assailed one straw man after another and made reference to a grab bag of proposals which would cost something on the order of $450 billion—assuring us on the one hand that they all had been supported by Republicans as well as Democrats in the past and suggesting that somehow they are going to turn the economy around. He called for further cuts in the payroll tax (which if continued indefinitely would undermine the case of Social Security as something people have earned rather than a form of welfare) and for a further extension of unemployment insurance (perhaps justifiable on humanitarian grounds, but sure to at least marginally raise the unemployment rate over what it would otherwise be). He called for a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed (unfortunately, these things can be gamed). He gave a veiled plug for his pet project of high-speed rail (a real dud) and for infrastructure spending generally (but didn’t he learn that there aren’t really any shovel-ready projects?). He called for a school modernization program (will it result in more jobs than the Seattle weatherization program that cost $22 million and produced 14 jobs?) and for funding more teacher jobs (a political payoff to the teacher unions which together with other unions gave Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle). “We’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the country.” Yeah, sure. Like the screening process that produced that $535,000,000 loan guarantee to now-bankrupt Solyndra. And Congress should pass the free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Except that Congress can’t, because Obama hasn’t sent them up there yet in his 961 days as president.
Obama assured us that this would all be paid for. But as far as I could gather, he punted that part of it to the supercommittee of 12 members set up under the debt ceiling bill. He now blithely charges it with coming up with more than its current goal of $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Oh, and he’s going to announce “a more ambitious deficit plan” that will “stabilize our debt in the long run”--11 days from now.
In the meantime, he called for higher taxes on “a few of the most affluent citizens”—as if this could pay for all the spending he’s been backing. What’s interesting here is that he seems to have left the way open for a 1986-style tax reform, cutting tax rates and eliminating tax preferences, or at least that’s how I read these words: “While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets [did he look up at his guest Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, which paid no corporate tax on $14 billion in profits last year?]. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary—an outrage he has asked us to fix [actually, Buffett could volunteer to pay more if he wants to]. We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.” As I read it, he’s not insisting on higher tax rates, though he apparently is not ready to agree to a tax reform that is scored as revenue-neutral, as the 1986 act was. Also, if Obama wanted a 1986-type reform, he could have used the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission’s recommendations last December as a springboard; instead, he brushed them aside without a murmur. So on balance I don’t think he’s serious on this, but there is a glimmer of a possibility that he is.
Straw men took a terrible beating from the president. He assailed “tax loopholes” for oil companies, the chief one of which is that they are treated like other companies classified as manufacturers. The administration proposal is that the five largest oil companies shouldn’t be, because—well, because we want to get our hands on more of their money. Today’s Republicans, he gave us to understand, want to “eliminate most government regulations” and “wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.” And, he suggested, they would never have created public health schools or the G.I. Bill or research universities.
When Barack Obama says, “This isn’t political grandstanding,” you have a pretty good clue that that is exactly what it is. Lest anyone doubt that, consider this from the third-to-last paragraph. “You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of the country.”
In other words, this was a campaign speech. It might result in passage of some of Obama’s proposals, and some of them might even do some good. But of course we didn’t see the kind of change of direction on policy that Bill Clinton made in 1995 and 1996, which enabled him to rise above his party’s 45% level of support in the 1994 elections (that’s the Democratic percentage of the House popular vote) and with 49% of the vote win reelection in 1996. (Ross Perot won 6% that year; polls suggest two points of it would have gone to Clinton had Perot not run.) I don’t think these proposals have the potential to turn around the careening economy, I don’t think many of them will become law and I don’t think this campaign initiative is likely to prove successful. From the demeanor and affect of the unhappy warrior at the podium last night, I suspect he may feel the same way.
Since I commented on Michele Bachmann’s makeup after the Republican presidential debate last night, let me make a comment on male neckware today. What is it with pastel ties? Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Boehner were all wearing them tonight, and so was Fox News’s Ed Henry, reporting from the White House.
And Huntsman was wearing “Obama” yellow at the debate the other night. The choice of ties and lighting (purple lights on the audience behind Brian Williams in his purple tie) was fascinating.
Perhaps Warren Buffet could just pay off the 800 million dollars the IRS says his company owes and has been litigating over for the last 10 years and than pay , say 50% of his income, to the IRS just to make it easy.
Yeah right.
He’s such an altruist
Obama can get all the angry he likes- a lame horse is still a lame horse, and we ain’t buyin’. How much of that 450 billion do we imagine will end up in union pockets?
Is this the best that the left can come up with? More spending? Left wing politicians always backed off in the face of unpopular legislation for the sake of their political careers. I guess the leftists just won’t allow that to happen anymore. After all, they ARE better, smarter, more entitled than the rest of us- yes?
Here we have the reason for the left’s hatred of our Constitution and the Founders- they actually thought the the people should govern and that good government came from the bottom, up. Silly twits!
I hope the nation’s independent voters were watching. They polled overwhelmingly as having disliked Stimulus 1. I do not think they will like Stimulus 2 any better.Obama’s speech appealed to those who were going to vote for him anyway and doubled down on alienating the fencesitters. A good trade off for Republican candidates.
Michael Barone. The man is brilliant and genuine. Always tells it like it is and is ALWAYS correct.
“Michael Barone. The man is brilliant and genuine. Always tells it like it is and is ALWAYS correct.”
Not always. He’s for gay marriage, and last year he wrote a column saying that the Republican Party must become more educated and “upscale” and get away from the Palin types.
Barack 0bama’s basic message has been “let’s get this over with so the country can get back to worshiping me.”
Good Link to your comment:
I’d also like to mention why doesn’t Oblame-me go after the MOVIE INDUSTRY for making EXCESSIVE PROFITS instead of the oil companies. Oh, wait, they’re liberals.
“Straw men took a terrible beating.” I loved that line It describes every Obama speech to a T.
The exact behavior one could expect from a malignant narcissist who is frustrated because he hasn’t gotten what he wants. This guy us is a very, very sick person.
Barone knows more about how Americans have voted in the past, and how they are likely to vote in the future, than any other analyst or commentator I have seen, heard, or read. When he talks about what is happening with the electorate, I always listen!
He intends to campaign across the country ad infinitum and put it all on our tab.
Given the position of his re-election chances, I doubt he can buy the vote, no matter how much it costs us.
I agree that he’s good on polls. But I think he’s weak on social conservatism — one rung of the three-rung Reagan stool. Barone is more of a secularist.
Actually I wondered about the tie colors too...seems they wanted to match match the background. Didn't like Santorum's pink tie....that's so ghey!
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.