Doc91678
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
Robert J. Samuelson WaPo op-ed:
The fiscal cliff is a massive failure of presidential leadership. The tedious and technical negotiations are but a subplot in a larger drama. Government can no longer fulfill all the promises it has made to various constituencies. Some promises will be reduced or disavowed. Which ones? Why? Only the president can pose these questions in a way that starts a national conversation over the choices to be made, but doing so requires the president to tell people things they dont want to hear. Thats his job: to help Americans face unavoidable, if unpleasant, realities. Barack Obama has refused to play this role.
Instead, he has cast the long-term budget problem as a question of whether the richest 1 percent or 2 percent of the population should pay more in taxes. Not only that, but he has insisted that the higher taxes be paid by raising rates, as opposed to reducing various tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, preferential rates) enjoyed heavily by upscale Americans. The obsession with rates is bad policy (higher rates may threaten risk-taking, work effort and hiring) but qualifies as good politics: It signals Obama is macho; hes tough on the rich, who are implicitly blamed for the nations budget and economic woes.
Whatever one thinks about raising taxes at the top (and I have no objection to it as part of comprehensive budget package), its not the crux of the problem. The crux of our problem the problem being the bipartisan and untenable promises made to most Americans of both high government benefits and low taxes arises from an aging population and high health costs, which cause rapid increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Until Obama conspicuously and consistently acknowledges these realities in straightforward and unmistakable language something he hasnt done and shows no signs of doing he cannot be said to be dealing honestly with the budget or with the American people.
Read more:
Obama
The fiscal cliff is a massive failure of presidential leadership. The tedious and technical negotiations are but a subplot in a larger drama. Government can no longer fulfill all the promises it has made to various constituencies. Some promises will be reduced or disavowed. Which ones? Why? Only the president can pose these questions in a way that starts a national conversation over the choices to be made, but doing so requires the president to tell people things they dont want to hear. Thats his job: to help Americans face unavoidable, if unpleasant, realities. Barack Obama has refused to play this role.
Instead, he has cast the long-term budget problem as a question of whether the richest 1 percent or 2 percent of the population should pay more in taxes. Not only that, but he has insisted that the higher taxes be paid by raising rates, as opposed to reducing various tax breaks (deductions, exemptions, preferential rates) enjoyed heavily by upscale Americans. The obsession with rates is bad policy (higher rates may threaten risk-taking, work effort and hiring) but qualifies as good politics: It signals Obama is macho; hes tough on the rich, who are implicitly blamed for the nations budget and economic woes.
Whatever one thinks about raising taxes at the top (and I have no objection to it as part of comprehensive budget package), its not the crux of the problem. The crux of our problem the problem being the bipartisan and untenable promises made to most Americans of both high government benefits and low taxes arises from an aging population and high health costs, which cause rapid increases in spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
~~~
Until Obama conspicuously and consistently acknowledges these realities in straightforward and unmistakable language something he hasnt done and shows no signs of doing he cannot be said to be dealing honestly with the budget or with the American people.
Read more:
Obama
