Did you make it through Obama's entire speech on budget planning this afternoon? Excellent. You're one step ahead of Vice President Joe Biden and possibly me.
Clearly, scheduling a speech after lunchtime was a mistake. I suspect, however, the administration considered this a win because, after all, Joe Biden was, at last, silent. Considering his track record of profanity-laced introductions and off-the-cuff observations on multiculturalism, this is probably the least disruptive thing he's done in a while. I just hope they woke him up before they left the room.
That said, Obama's budget speech did have a few highlights. Much of which I missed while I was banging my forehead on coffee table. At the very least, I can rest comfortably knowing that clearly, most Americans don't dig too deeply for their news, since it's evident from the speech that accurate depictions of legislative realities are still not entirely necessary. I can also rest easier knowing that Obama's grasp of the English language remains high, or at least, his team of marketing professionals remains talented. This is the first - and only - time I've ever heard tax increases referred to "spending cuts in the tax code."
Otherwise, here's your rundown of the genius four-step plan that's going to help America reclaim it's freedom:
- Primarily, Obama's solution to reduce spending hinges on - get this - "investment": " We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings,
including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core
investments we need to grow and create jobs. We'll invest in medical
research and clean energy technology. We'll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training." All of that to me sort of sounds like spending. But what do I know? I'm still laboring under the opinion that the tax code has little to do with the federal budget.
- Obama specified that cuts need to be made in the area of defense. That's probably true. While $300 million welfare programs are being cut completely, the DoD was the only institution to receive a $5B increase in discretionary spending. That's a lot of bucks to buy bombers. The key, though, isn't saying to keep the former and dump the latter. It's recognizing that both the former and the latter are ripe for the trimming. Unfortunately, while most people are willing to take a weed-whacker to entitlement spending, Obama appears to be content with those scissors you give kids to cut construction paper.
- Step three is apparently to blame Republicans for destroying Medicare or something, which is interesting since Obamacare actually decreased Medicare spending by an average of 2-5% per year until it ended altogether, and that's only if Medicare survived long enough to see cuts. Paul Ryan's budget plan allows seniors to purchase private insurance so as not to be subject to Medicare's impending bankruptcy. Obama's plan actually puts the cost of health care on the shoulders of states, who don't come up with their money by shaking trees on the capitol lawn.
- And then there's the reduction of spending in the tax code. I'm still confused about this one, but I'm venturing a guess that he means taxing the rich to pay for the ever-more-bloated federal budget instead of making the cuts necessary to ensure the long-term survival of the American economy. I'm not dumb enough to believe that he's failed to notice that conflating tax cuts and deficit reduction doesn't result in a realistic solution. I'm just fairly sure he'd rather not cut anything, so he's game to rely on the rich to pay for everything. Cutting taxes doesn't create further deficits unless you don't control spending at the same time.
Specifics aren't mentioned at any point. The deficit commission he trusted to provide him real solutions and detailed ideas was only mentioned twice, and a couple of times, it became clear that he was totally throwing their suggestions out because, and I'm just assuming things here, he had a host of better ideas he totally came up with on par four of the eighth green during last Saturday's foursome at Andrews AFB. I'm also assuming he didn't really mean that whole thing where he cited China as a model of domestic economic growth, where he touted a deficit reduction in 2012 when the budget actually ads nearly $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade, or the three thousand times he told me that I was not allowing him to be clear. I'm just impressed that, as Guy Benson of Townhall said, how efficiently he managed to position himself in the middle of a gaggle of very extreme strawmen with varying political opinions.
In other words, the shorter Barack Obama is basically this: You don't need your money. Just give it to us. We promise we'll spend it better this time. We SWEAR. You don't need it, do you?
And plus, you can always pick Joe Biden's pocket when he falls asleep next time.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Tags: 2012, 2012 Election, Barack Obama, budget, budget deficit, deficit, Joe Biden, Paul Ryan, speech, spending, tax
Thank God he was not at one of the now infamous Control Towers, with airplanes waiting to land. Hey, if THEY
can "nod off" when hundreds of people's lives are at stake, why criticize VP Biden, after all the stress and meetings he has had to attend, trying to get the GOP to
make up their minds whether they are for, or against the American Taxpayer? It's obvious, the criticism should go toward Mr. Boehner, who weeps in public, and tries to play John Wayne, in the House of Reps...
They have been in control of the House, for 5 months, and I have yet to see any Rocket Science, come out of the House, since they gained control.
Hope they enjoy their "power trip" because they won't be coming back, when it's time for re-election, unless they work with the POTUS, instead of against him.
The Tea Party should stick to collecting Tea Pots, and stay out of the President's way.