Powerline has some comments also:
If not now, when? How about two years ago? Or last year? Or in February, when Obama proposed a budget that contemplated, on the most optimistic assumptions, adding at least $600 billion of new debt every year for the next decade? Obama is now fixated on the “deadline” of August 2, 2011, but where was he in 2009? Or 2010? Or prior to last week? It has been over two years since the federal government has had a budget. For Obama to adopt a sanctimonious “eat your peas” approach to the federal budget is so disingenuous that it is not surprising that Republicans find him infuriating to negotiate with.Isn't it now obvious to even the most diehard Obama-ite that the Bowles-Simpson debt commission was just a delaying tactic to push off difficult choices and pork up the government? Even at this late and urgent date, Obama has yet to put on the table a proposal that will cut the deficit even as much as we're borrowing on a monthly basis.
Mr. Serious Responsibility wants to talk it out now.
Extra - Leadership is hard, and stuff.
More - Legal Insurrection: "A completely irresponsible president who just months ago proposed a budget with devastating deficits, repeatedly demanded that the deficits and debt be dealt with now, without any delay. Where has he been for two years?"
And this - Verum Serum: "If a tax increase is key to any deal, why didn't Democrats raise taxes the last six times they raised the debt limit?" That is, when they had wide majorities in Congress. It's a mystery, indeed.
5 comments:
The Bowles-Simpson debt commission concluded without issuing a report. Apparently this small detail won't stop "the most diehard Bowles-Simpson-ites" from dragging the attempted proposal around forever like Weekend at Bernie's. Commission member and very serious economic realist spokesthinker Paul Ryan was among those who rejected it.
Actually, it submitted a report even though it didn't get the needed votes to force a vote in Congress. Ryan voted against it because it wasn't aggressive enough, but it was ultimately sunk by the large number of Democrats who voted against it, including that guy on Fox News Sunday this past weekend. Obama could have adopted any one of the majority recommendations, but he ignored it altogether.
So it's Bowles-Simpson, Gang of Six, Biden commission - but NOW we're gonna get serious!
Why didn't Democrats raise taxes when they had complete control in Congress and the Presidency?
Because it is so much more fun to make the Republicans the tax collectors for big government. If Republicans agree to raise taxes, do you think the voters or Democrats will give them credit next year?
No... actually, the vote against Bowles-Simpson was bipartisan, with Ryan, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) each voting against it: 3 of the 7 "no" votes. The majority recommendations were not supported by a majority of Republican representatives on the commission.
Thus, the plan was "ultimately sunk" by those three Republicans; switch their votes to yeas, and the official report is placed on President Obama's and Congress' desks instead of becoming a talking point.
Of course, if you switch those votes, Rep. Ryan doesn't get his shot at becoming The Economic One. And the thus-nonexistent Ryan Roadmap doesn't get to try and position Bowles-Simpson as the middle-of-the-road option.
Mitch McConnell today:
"If we're unable to come together, we think it's extremely important that the country reassure the markets that default is not an option."
Let's set that to music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXGv-rd-bvA
Post a Comment