Sunday, March 22, 2009

Do You Believe Obama & The Dems Care About The Deficti?

Today’s lead Washington Post editorial calls attention to the smoke and mirrors the Obama administration's using to justify the staggeringly large increase in federal debt it wants to lay on the backs of Americans.

Here’s part of the editorial - - -

Very little of the claimed deficit reduction [in future years] in the Obama plan comes from policy changes; it results more or less automatically from the assumed end of the recession, as well as by claiming savings in reducing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from unrealistically high forecasts.

Yet both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the [independent Congressional Budget Office] report is no reason to revise the president's ambitious tax and spending blueprint.

Mr. Obama should treat the CBO report as an incentive to fulfill his repeated promises, during and after the campaign, to make hard choices on the budget.

Until now he has offered a host of new spending -- on health care, middle-class tax cuts, education and alternative energy -- without calling for much sacrifice from anyone except the top 5 percent of the income scale. Though his emphasis on controlling health-care costs is welcome, it's not a substitute for reforming the entitlement programs that are the drivers of long-term fiscal crisis, Medicare and Social Security.

Yet the president has offered no plan for either and no road map even for achieving a plan. Several members of his own party in the Senate have been expressing doubts about his strategy, and the CBO report will lend credibility to their concerns.

He should heed them.

The entire editorial’s here.


My Comments:

Yes, President Obama should heed them. But does anyone think he will?

Obama and his Dem colleagues such as Reps. Frank and Rangel, Sens. Dodd and Reid, and Speaker Pelosi care as much about crippling deficits as they did about the fiscal soundness of Freddie and Fannie.


Anonymous said...

In all the uproar over the bonuses paid to AIG execs, has there been any mention of the bonuses paid to the Board of Directors of AIG? What about the monies paid to the various bank Boards of Directors of such banks as Wachovia? Why should they be paid anything for what was obviously a derelection of duty? Their job was to oversee that the institutions on whose boards they sat (and pulled down a hefty per diem as a result) was to make sure that said institutions were being run in a proper manner.
Why should Bob Steel be rewarded for runnning wachovia into the ground?
Where is the outrage on the part of Rangel and Dodd that AIG funded political campaigns - theirs included? WHy are they not returning said funds (the peoples' monies)? Rangel's reply, when questioned by Chris Wallace is that we should have public financing of all campaigns - I guess Rangel now figures that the AIG contribution is "public financing".