President Obama doesn’t like the GOP’s “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan. He prefers his own plan, which is, um, well, he’ll get back to you on that one.
Throughout the day, White House officials slammed the Cut, Cap and Balance plan.
The plan “is an extreme version of a constitutional amendment that would cap government spending and require a two-thirds supermajority to cut tax loopholes or take other steps on revenue,” Jason Furman, the deputy director of Obama’s National Economic Council, announced on the White House blog this morning.
In contrast, he wrote, “the President is pushing everyone to come to the table, put politics aside, work through our differences and prove to the American people that we can still do big and difficult, but necessary things.”
I love the generalities that come from the White House. “Big and difficult, but necessary things.” Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, during the health care debate. We all know how well that monstrosity of a bill turned out. Any time Obama talks about doing big things, run for your life.
And what “big things” does Obama expect Republicans and Democrats to join together on? Obama Propaganda Minister Jay Carney insists that “the president has been very clear” on what he wants. What he wants, it seems, is for Republicans and Democrats to come together and sit at a table. That’s just about all he’s said. He wants them to join together in joining together. But wait, isn’t that inherent in bipartisan negotiations? So basically the President just wants Rs and Ds to get together in a room to provide him with a nice photo op. That’s all he’s been clear on. No plan, no leadership.
In fact, according to Carney, Obama is a better leader than the Republicans because he isn’t proposing any plan of his own. Only in the alternate universe that is Obamaland can leadership mean doing nothing but giving speeches.
In this debt debate, Obama has been anything but a leader. Rather than cut, cap, and balance, Obama is cutthroat, captive, and off balance.
- Cutthroat: Rather than focus on what is best for the country, Obama has put his political ambitions ahead of service to the Nation. Not only does Obama push America to the brink of fiscal insolvency, but along the way he hopes to bring down the only legislators in Washington who care about the deficit and debt. These are the freshman Republicans who he, his party, and his praetorian guard in the media have smeared with allegation of racism, time-wasting, and illiteracy
- Captive: Obama is being held captive by the radical left of his party and the special interests that helped to elect him. The left is philosophically against budget cuts because they would strike a blow to the social welfare state. Democrat strategists are against the cuts because government money is how Democrats bribe voting blocks to side with them (welfare, union bailouts, Medicare, food stamps, green energy subsidies, etc). On the other hand, Obama wants to eliminate any government policy that benefits the Republicans and their “billionaire” supporters. Never mind that unilaterally repealing oil and gas subsidies—without other changes to the tax code—would dramatically increase energy costs and cripple the already shaky economy.
- Off Balance: The President thinks that by taking the “middle ground” of both tax increases and spending cuts, he’ll ensure his reelection. Yet it looks like tax hikes could be immediate but spending cuts will be mostly put off until after the election. With a majority of Americans opposing an increase in the debt ceiling without significant measures to reduce the deficit, Obama could very well ensure his defeat by accepting a plan that fails to meet Americans’ expectations. Additionally, the President calls for a “balanced” approach (tax hikes and spending reductions), yet rejects the only real “balanced” measure, a balanced-budget amendment.
This all comes as more and more people are comparing the President to Richard Nixon for his lack of transparency and frosty relationship with some in the press (the ones who actually ask tough questions). Conservative analyst Brit Hume made the comparison on Fox News Sunday, liberal columnist Maureen Dowd made the comparison in the New York Times, and others have picked up on this theme as well.
Obama could be the most dishonest, or perhaps disingenuous, President ever for promising unprecedented transparency during the campaign, yet once he reached the Presidency, yielding to closed-door legislative negotiations, failing to disclose important parts of his background, and stonewalling in the face of investigations.
Cutthroat, captive, and off balance. Are we talking about Richard Nixon or Barack Obama? Some days I can’t tell the difference, although one, despite his domestic shortcomings, actually had a good foreign policy.