Is there ever a useful promise that Obama tries to keep?

Let me get this straight, when Obama was campaigning last October and November he was constantly promising a net cut in government spending and an increase in taxes for the higher income people that merely put it back to what they were under Clinton. He also promised a tax cut for 95 percent of people. He also promised to cut the deficit and increase defense spending.

Point 1

Democrats point out that Obama inherited an unprecedented fiscal mess caused by the recession and the taxpayer-financed bailout of Wall Street. Rather than retrenching, however, they still promise to award big budget increases to education and clean energy programs, while assuming Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. health care system advance.

"The best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is ... with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest," Obama said in a Tuesday night news conference. . . . .

During October and November Obama frequently said that we had the worst financial crisis every and the worst economy since the Great Depression. I want to know what changed between November 4th and November 17th when he went from being a deficit cutter to a supporter of massive deficits. Also, even if you can convince me that things got worse than Obama had thought they would have during this period, here is a question: if you think things are the worst since the depression you cut spending and cut the deficit, but if you think that they are suddenly a little worse than that you massively increase spending and increase the deficit. Somebody please explain.

Point 2 (a) (b):

The White House said it would launch a search for new tax revenues, as Congressional leaders moved to scale back proposed spending increases and tax cuts in President Barack Obama's ambitious budget. . . .

President Barack Obama is putting former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in charge of a tax- code review aimed at closing loopholes, streamlining the law and generating revenue. . . .

Point 3

While the budget plans that Democrats started pushing through Congress largely mirrored Obama's blueprint, the plan advanced by Senate Democrats employs some sleight of hand—such as assuming that Obama's signature $400 tax cut for most workers and $800 for couples will not be renewed beyond 2010—to cut projected deficits to a more sustainable level. . . . .

And of course, Obama isn't defending that tax cut.



Blogger Matthew said...

You should call this blog entry "Me Dishonest".

The economy tanked during the end phase of the election and the situation is very different than the one Obama started out making promises for.

You may disagree with the thinking, but you know that in a large contraction like this the government may choose to try to make up for reduced consumer spending by taxing the population and borrowing, then spending money itself. Priming the pump - isn't that what it's called? I think they teach that in high school, so I'm sure you are familiar with it.

I don't understand why you don't argue the merits of the strategy instead of pretending Obama is acting in an unexplainable and dishonest manner.

3/26/2009 12:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home