I was listening to Dave Ross this morning as I was driving on the highway. Since Dave added Luke Burbank to his show, the content of that 9am to Noon time slot has gotten even more liberal. I would not characterize the change as a positive one.
Dave and Luke were talking about how disappointed they were that President Obama has decided to move forward with military tribunals at Gitmo even though in the campaign he was clear about closing the prison and trying the inmates in civilian courts. Rather than being upset that he made a commitment to voters and reneged like he has done on about every important issue in the election Dave and Luke were talking about how much they admired the President for being flexible when presented with information that led to a different action.
Luke Burbank characterized Obama as being squishy. He like the fact that the President was squishy.
There have been a number of times when the President has “realized the error” of his campaign rhetoric and directed his administration to act 180 degrees different from the promises in the campaign.
If you didn’t know enough about his record or his political leanings before the election in 2008 to vote for him you were looking for a reason to choose one candidate over the other. You were listening to the words he was speaking so eloquently and were convinced he was your guy because of those words. When he said he would close Gitmo and that was your issue, you decided to vote for him.
So how do you feel now?
The reason Dave and Luke characterize Obama as squishy is because he is not afraid to say what you want to hear but act completely different when a decision has to be made. Think about how many times he promised to act if you voted for him but when push came to shove, he flip-flopped. Is that the president you thought we elected? Is that the kind of man we want leading our country?
If there was ever a “bait and switch” president, this is him.
We have a huge task before us to hinder him from delivering any more of his true agenda during the remainder of this term of office; and to replace him with a candidate who stands behind his words. Where I am more likely to support conservative candidates, some of you might just want a candidate of your own persuasion that is not a prevaricator.
In the remaining months of his presidency Barak Obama will make every effort to convince voters that he is a moderate with his words like he does so well. What will be important is to watch what he does. His actions are a much better indicator of his political agenda than his words.
If he has any leadership he should be showing it now. Skyrocketing fuel prices caused by the crisis in the Arab world; two significant issues requiring leadership. What is he doing to address either?
In the State of the Union speech he talked about cutting the deficit. The Republicans in the House sent a bill to the Senate addressing last year’s budget with 60 billion in cuts. If the President is serious about his words in the speech, he works to get the Democratic Senate to approve the House Bill. Let’s see what kind of leadership he has with his own party?
During his campaign, he talked about putting on a comfortable pair of shoes to walk the picket line with union members because everyone is entitled to union representation. State Budgets are hemorrhaging red ink because of commitments to made to unions and the President is more concerned about the workers.
Leadership is what we need and this guy doesn’t appear to have any. He is a good looking smooth talking politician but a leader he is not.
Only in Government is Cutting Spending Increasing Spending
by Steve DanaIn the course of the lengthy discussion regarding the national debt and deficits I couldn’t help but wonder if we all understood the accepted definitions of terms. In so many cases the same terms were used in different contexts.
For example; the term “budget cuts”? For you and me, a cut to my budget is spending less in the next cycle than I did in the current cycle. For the government cutting the budget is not spending less, it’s cutting the rate of growth of government spending. You and I would spend less, they would spend more, but supposedly decrease the year over year rate of growth. Where did they learn their math?
How about “tax reform”? Is “tax reform” raising rates or changing structure? Republicans tried to focus on cutting spending to reduce current deficits while Democrats wanted to incorporate “tax reform” into the debate to achieve the desired outcome. They seem to think that if a guy can afford a jet he isn’t paying enough tax. According to Democrats, balancing the budget must include both cuts in spending and tax reform. I could go along with that if “reform” meant addressing the tax code in total rather than just raising the rates higher on the folks who are already paying the lion’s share of the taxes already.
In a perverted way, I’ve been amused about the characterization by the “left” that the country is being screwed by the nation’s high earners because they aren’t paying their fair share of taxes; yet according to the Congressional Budget Office 51% of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes at all. That is Zero Federal Income Tax paid by 51% of Americans but according to the Democrats in Congress, they’re over taxed.
While the top 5% of American earners pay 40% of the Federal Income Tax collected and the top 15% of American earners pay 75% of the Federal Income Tax but according to Democrats in Congress they aren’t paying their fair share. What am I missing? One side pays no tax but is over taxed and the other side pays all the tax but is not paying their fair share.
I think most Americans agree the Tax Code is too complex to be fair. And “fair” is variable that moves back and forth depending on your personal interests. I suspect that if we were given a choice of keeping the current federal income tax system or dumping it all for a flat tax of maybe 8%, most Americans would opt for a flat tax that treats everyone the same. If you earn $100,000 you pay $8,000; if you earn a million bucks you would pay $80,000 and if you earned $25,000 you would pay $2,000. Everyone would pay based upon what they earned (at the same rate). Everyone pays the same rate but based upon their earnings they pay more or less. That sounds like tax reform.
And finally, this agreement between the parties regarding raising the debt limit; the Democrats didn’t get tax increases, but the Republicans didn’t get any meaningful cuts and the President got an agreement to increase the national debt by 20% over the next 18 months. That is another increase of the debt from $14.2 Trillion to $16.4 trillion by election day in 2012. Then factor in the 12 person committee that will either cut a trillion or so in government spending or cut the Defense budget by another $800 Billion. How could Republicans view any of this as a victory? As far as I can tell, this was another huge giveaway to the Democrats. I am baffled how we let this happen.
Posted in Federal Government, Public Budgets | 3 Comments »