I'm disappointed with Obama's plan to "fully pay for" his jobs bill. I know a taxes-only funding proposal could be just the opening bid, but it's the wrong tack even so. It's a step back from the grand bargain he reasonably offered in late July. Or was reasonableness only an opening bid in a different game?
I have little tolerance for political games, or political calculus that a proposal has to be made to satisfy the base. Obama hasn't struck me as an "appeal-to-the-base" type of guy, so I'm a little stumped as to why he did this.
This is what I'm holding my breath for: a more balanced deficit reduction plan. I want to see whether he's serious about offering realistic deficit reduction, that is, one that reflects a workable compromise among the various factions in this country. I hope he's going to be more than chief cheerleader for the Democratic negotiating team. That's a plausible role for him, but the country needs someone or some group who can be the voice of reason. I would have liked Obama to do that, but maybe it's not possible with so many people hating on him. I'll revisit this topic in a few weeks, when my thoughts have fermented a bit and there are more events to draw on.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep comments short and free of personal insults. Insults such as libtard, Obummer, Repug, wingnut, and moonbat are not welcome and will be edited or deleted. Cliches we've all heard before will be deleted, so make sure there is substance to your remarks. Links to data are very welcome so we can all learn and interpret for ourselves.
Anonymous comments are welcome, but it's better if you click on "Name/URL" and enter any screen name. Thank you.