SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (61000)1/9/2013 10:29:11 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
An Exercise in Fiscal Evasion
Congress and the White House do nothing about the ever-expanding federal budget.
Steve Chapman
January 7, 2013

When it comes to serious, lasting budget constraints, our leaders in Washington have the escape talents of Houdini. The ominous approach of the fiscal cliff put Democrats in a position to extract a lot more revenue and Republicans to force real spending cuts. That prospect drove the two sides to agree that the only reasonable option was neither.

They fixed the budget the same way they always fix it: wrapping it up with a big red bow and shipping it to the taxpayers of the future. As Robert Bixby of the fiscal watchdog group The Concord Coalition puts it, the deal "requires no hard choices and solves no difficult problems." It neatly postpones that painful, necessary work till another day, when we can expect it to be postponed again.

President Barack Obama set out to cut total deficits by $2 trillion over the next decade, comparing to what they would have been under the tax and spending policies in effect last year. His main remedy was raising tax rates at the top end of the income spectrum. In the end, according to The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), he got $650 billion, a piddling one-third of his goal.

Congressional Republicans wanted to focus on curbing outlays. They preferred no additional taxes at all, but if they were going to give on that point, they would demand big concessions from Obama on expenditures. In the end, though, Congress agreed to higher tax rates in exchange for ... no spending cuts. That's right: none.

Over the next decade, says CRFB, the U.S. government debt was on track to reach a staggering 81.5 percent of GDP, up from 72.8 percent today. Thanks to this noble display of statesmanship, it may hit only 78.9 percent.

It's enough to make you wish they hadn't bothered making a deal. In that case, automatic spending cuts would have kicked in, trimming projected outlays by $1.2 trillion over nine years. The sequester would have been ugly, taking the form of indiscriminate across-the-board reductions for domestic programs and defense. But it would have actually made a dent in the ever-expanding federal budget.

What we got instead was not a grand bargain. It was an exercise in evasion. That is no accident. The reason we got into the current fiscal pit is that politicians follow the path of least resistance. They prefer not to antagonize constituents by trimming back benefits that are widely cherished. But they also know better than to compel taxpayers to cover the entire cost of those programs. So spending mushrooms, tax revenues lag behind, and the debt soars.

Even when both sides found a way to agree on how to restrain spending, they found a way to disagree. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had proposed to save money on entitlement spending, the biggest cause of budget bloat, by slightly modifying cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security (using a formula known as the "chained Consumer Price Index").

It wasn't the sort of change that would have impoverished seniors, since it would have shaved about a quarter of a percentage point off the annual increases. And the savings were modest: about $112 billion over 10 years, while yielding an additional $72 billion in revenue. Still, it was far better than nothing.

Many congressional Democrats denounced the suggestion, but Obama surprised everyone by agreeing, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the change would amount to "a strengthening of Social Security." The deal was on.

And then it was off: Republicans abruptly changed their minds. Sen. John McCain of Arizona excused the reversal on the ground that "we can't win an argument that has Social Security for seniors versus taxes for the rich." Said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, "There's a realization that in spite of the president's apparent endorsement of a chained CPI, that that proposal deserves more study."

In spite of Obama's endorsement? She meant because of it. Offering this money-saving change made Republicans look fiscally responsible, in contrast to the free-spending Obama. But actually enacting it was a political risk they were not willing to take.

Instead of forcing the president to accept new entitlement cuts as the price for raising taxes, Congress let him have his tax increase for free. Obama wasn't about to say no.

So here's the payoff for weeks of fear and anguish about the looming fiscal cliff: higher taxes, higher spending and a bigger debt. Funny how that worked out.

reason.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (61000)1/10/2013 9:22:26 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Sessions: 'Jack Lew must never be secretary of Treasury'
by Kara Rowland | January 09, 2013

A key Senator has vowed to block the expected promotion of White House Chief of Staff Jacob "Jack" Lew, saying he "must never be secretary of Treasury."

Lew is expected to be nominated for the treasury secretary job by the end of the week.

A strongly worded statement by Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ala. -- prepared in anticipation of that nomination and obtained by Fox News -- signals the bumpy ride Lew could face during the Senate confirmation process. Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, says Lew misled Congress about the White House's budget proposals and argues that should disqualify him from being put in charge of the government's finances.

"Lew, as the president's budget director, appeared before Congress and continued to insist that President Obama's budget-which Lew had crafted-would not add to the debt of the United States," Sessions said in the statement, calling Lew's comments "the most direct and important false assertion during my entire time in Washington."

Obama is expected to announce Lew's nomination later this week.

A veteran of the Clinton White House who has held several positions in the Obama administration, Lew has previously been confirmed by the Senate. But Sessions insists this time should be different.

"At this time of unprecedented slow growth, high unemployment, and huge deficits, we need a secretary of Treasury that the American people, the Congress and the world will know is up to the task of getting America on the path to prosperity; not the path to decline," he said in the statement. "Jack Lew is not that man."

A spokesman for Sessions said the senator does not believe the Lew nomination will be successful.

politics.blogs.foxnews.com

But then Senate democrats approved a tax cheat to be Treasury Secretary, why should merely lying to COngress be an impediment? The depths to which democrats plunge continue to amaze observers.



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (61000)1/21/2013 10:54:55 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Let’s Not Make a Deal
The great non-compromiser.
By FRED BARNES
Jan 28, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 19

Obama complained in a Saturday radio and Internet address that crucial issues are resolved in Washington only at the last possible moment. It was late December when he spoke, three days before the deadline on the fiscal cliff. A deal to avert automatic tax increases had yet to be reached.

“America wonders why it is in this town why you can’t get stuff done in an organized timetable,” he said. “Why everything has to always wait until the last minute. We’re now at the last minute. .??.??. Let’s not miss this deadline. That’s the bare minimum we should be able to get done.”

As usual, the president accepted no responsibility, much less blame, for the recurring phenomenon of brinkmanship. Two weeks earlier, he said Republicans were the impediment to reaching timely agreements because “it is very hard for them to say yes to me.”

True, it is difficult. But there’s a bigger problem. It’s not Obama’s inability to get along with Republicans. Nor is it the fact that he’s an exceptionally poor negotiator. The real problem is simply Obama’s refusal to compromise.

The president claims to be open to compromise. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s not a coincidence that he hasn’t arranged a single bipartisan compromise with Republicans. Others in his orbit have—Vice President Biden twice, Senate majority leader Harry Reid once—but not Obama personally. He wrecks compromises. He doesn’t facilitate them.

In 2011, he came close to negotiating a $4 trillion “grand bargain” with House speaker John Boehner—before blowing it up. Boehner went out on a limb by agreeing to $800 billion in tax hikes, but Obama insisted on $400 billion more in taxes. That killed the compromise.

Following his reelection in November, the president appeared receptive to a compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff. But he suddenly increased his demands far beyond what Republicans could swallow. Thus, no compromise. Instead, a cliff deal was forced on Republicans, who feared being blamed for raising taxes. It was largely on Obama’s terms.

Why is Obama unable to compromise? I think there are both personal and political reasons. Far more than other politicians, Obama is convinced of the rightness of whatever he proposes. As best I can tell, this is not merely an excess of self-confidence. It’s a vanity, a conceit. On top of that, Obama regards practically everything Republicans want as ideologically toxic.

He was spoiled in his first two years as president. Democrats had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, so he got most of what he wanted—Obamacare, stimulus—without the need to compromise with Republicans for their votes.

When those majorities vanished in the GOP landslide in 2010, Obama was confronted with a Republican House and a barely Democratic Senate. He still hasn’t adjusted. And with reelection, he doesn’t think he has to. He believes it’s time for Republicans to knuckle under.

He talks about a “balanced” approach to taxes and spending. But the balance is heavily weighted in favor of tax increases, the bigger the better, and what often amount to phantom spending cuts. He’ll cut money for overseas wars that was never going to be spent in the first place.

Yet as the president told journalist Richard Wolffe, “You know, I actually believe my own bull—.” Indeed, he does, now more than ever.

The political rationale for spurning compromise comes from Obama’s attachment to his Democratic base—labor, liberals, feminists, environmentalists, minorities. He relied on them in his campaign for a second term and he’s loath to cross them now. And they’re dead set against any meaningful cuts in spending (except for defense).

To reach a compromise with the other party, “you can’t just sit back and hope that a bipartisan deal will fall in your lap,” says Keith Hennessey, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush. “You have to proactively challenge your own party to make it happen.” Obama is unwilling to do that.

In speeches and at press conferences, he pays lip service to tackling entitlements, but it’s always in the future. He’s endorsed a small reduction in Social Security’s annual cost-of-living increase, but backed away from actually offering it to get a bipartisan compromise. Why? His base opposes even this tiniest of concessions.

In the next three months, Obama faces three deadlines, or cliffs. Government borrowing will reach its limit—the so-called debt limit—in late February or early March. The $1.2 trillion sequester goes into effect on March 1. And the continuing resolution that keeps the government operating in lieu of a budget expires on March 27.

If the president wants to deal with these before the last minute, he’d better be prepared to compromise. Last week, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell urged him to “engage now or force a crisis later” on increasing the debt limit. To clear the way, McConnell said, what’s required is “a bipartisan spending-reduction solution.”

Spending cuts are precisely what Obama refuses to consider. He’s called for a “clean” bill to increase the debt limit, unlike 2011 when he was forced to compromise and accept spending cuts (negotiated by others). That was a painful episode for Obama. And he’s adamant about not compromising this year.

He’s no help on the sequester either. To replace its across-the-board cuts, half defense, half domestic, Obama wants to include tax increases. This is reminiscent of the spending cuts that passed muster with Biden last year, only to be brushed aside when Obama joined budget talks.

In all this, President Obama may be unaware that his allergy to compromise has a downside. It keeps him from acting in his own interest. For a freshly reelected president, he has a surprisingly low job approval rating. It hovers around 50 percent. But he has it within his power to improve his standing. Americans crave two things in Washington: bipartisanship and reduced spending. Deliver them and his approval rating will soar. All that’s required on his part is compromise.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (61000)2/10/2013 11:48:03 AM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
After ignoring unemployment, Obama seeks to convince Americans it’s his top priority
Byron York
February 10, 2013 | 7:43 am

White House spinners are working furiously in the final 72 hours before President Obama’s State of the Union speech. Their job: convince the recession-scarred American public that economic recovery is Obama’s top priority — after everything he has said and done to suggest otherwise.

The unemployment rate is 7.9 percent — one tenth of a point higher than it was when Obama took office in January 2009. But the true toll of joblessness is far higher. The Labor Department’s so-called U-6 rate, which includes people who want a job but have become so discouraged they have quit looking, is 14.4 percent. And a new study, by Rutgers University scholars, shows that 23 percent of those surveyed have lost a job sometime in the last four years, while another 11 percent have seen someone in their household lose a job. That is one-third of the American people who have experienced unemployment during Obama’s time in office, along with many more who have experienced other hardships of the economic downturn.

“Unemployment and what happened in the recession are society-wide experiences,” Rutgers professor Carl Van Horn, a co-author of the report, told me recently. And indeed, thousands of polls in the last four years have shown that jobs and the economy are the public’s top concern, ranking far above any other issue or set of issues.

Yet in what was likely to be the most-watched speech of his second term, his January 21 inaugural address, Obama ignored the issue of unemployment. Simply ignored it. The closest he came to even acknowledging a problem with the economy is when he said, “An economic recovery has begun” — five words out of a 2,100-word speech. Instead, Obama devoted significant portions of the address to gay marriage, global warming, immigration, and other priorities.

At other times since his re-election last November, Obama has made clear that other issues top his second-term agenda. In a New Year’s interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama was asked to name his top priority for the next few years. He put immigration reform at the top of the list. “That’s something we should get done,” Obama said. Economic recovery, Obama added, is “the second thing that we’ve got to do.”

Since his inauguration, Obama has traveled outside Washington to make high-profile speeches, with an address on immigration reform in Las Vegas and on gun control in Minneapolis. That big speech on the economy, by far the public’s number one concern? It hasn’t happened.

So now, the White House is telling everyone that Obama will “return” to the issue of jobs and the economy in his State of the Union address. In articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Associated Press and elsewhere, White House aides are claiming Obama realizes that the economy is still the public’s number one issue.

“President Obama will concentrate his State of the Union speech on the economy, shifting the emphasis away from the broad social agenda of his second inaugural address to refocus attention on a set of problems that vexed his first term,” reports the Washington Post.

“Mr. Obama will vow to use the power of his office to recapture robust job growth and economic expansion, according to White House officials who have seen the speech,” reports the Times. “Both eluded him during his first term.”

The president “will focus his State of the Union address on boosting job creation and economic growth at a time of high unemployment, underscoring the degree to which the economy could threaten his ability to pursue second-term priorities such as gun control, immigration policy and climate change,” reports the Associated Press.

National Journal’s Ron Fournier writes that “White House officials tell me they feel stung by coverage of the inaugural address,” when the press “highlighted the president’s left-leaning stances on immigration, gun control, climate change, and gay and women’s rights.” Those White House officials claimed to Fournier that Obama in fact devoted much of his inaugural address to the economy — a claim that is on its face not true.

Obama’s slighting of the economy is nothing new. Critics charged throughout his first term that at a time when economic conditions bordered on the desperate, the president devoted more than a year of his energies to passing a national health care scheme. At the time, the White House promised it would “pivot” to the issue of jobs and the economy at some future time. That time never came. Meanwhile, all the polls showed deep public concern over the economy.

Now, apparently, Obama has noticed public opinion. “Obama’s return to an overtly economic message is supported in part by polls,” reports the Post, which notices “a gulf between what Obama has been talking most about publicly since his reelection and what most concerns the American electorate.”

Anyone could have seen that at any time in the last few months, or years. See here, and here, and here. Despite the nation’s deep and prolonged suffering, the president has simply never put the economy at the top of his agenda. After all he has said and done, will a single speech convince the public the he does now?

washingtonexaminer.com