Banner ad

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Obama can't even get his story straight

In his press conference Monday President Obama posed as the brave man willing to stand against his own party by doing something to preserve Medicare.
I mean, the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because they’re looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs. And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.
Hmmm. Wasn't he the one who pushed through his major health care reform under the pretense that it would save Medicare? Why, yes he did. Here he is in August of last year.
President Barack Obama says Medicare will exist for many more years, thanks to new legislation that helped put the health care program for seniors on stronger financial footing.

Seniors already are benefiting from health reform, said Obama, noting that many have received $250 rebates to help buy medicine, for example.

In his weekly radio and Internet message, the president said the law and efforts by his administration to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse both in Medicare and across government generally are making the program stronger and cutting health care costs for seniors.
Of course, that is not what the chief actuary for Medicare says.

I guess that delusion has been fully revealed. In fact, the President is required by law to submit a plan to address Medicare's insolvency. But that is just an inconvenient law that President Obama has ignored. And now he's puffing out his chest that he's willing to address the problems Medicare is facing. Though that won't stop the Democrats from trying to use Mediscare demagoguery against the House Republicans who have actually proposed and voted for a plan to save Medicare.

Oh, and then there was this cute comment from our Vice President.
During another exchange, Republicans were going through proposed tax increases as bad for jobs.

“C’mon, man!” Vice President Biden exclaimed, “let’s get real!”

The Vice President argued that their opposition isn’t economic, it’s ideological, that no real economist thinks they’re “job killers.”
Has he forgotten that his own president said in 2009, that "The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

So now we have anemic economic growth and horrible job numbers with an increasing percentage of Americans facing long-term unemployment. Why would it suddenly be good economics to raise taxes on the people who create jobs or on corporations? All they'll do is pass it on to consumers and hold off on new hires. Contrary to Biden's economic ignorance, this is not a plan that many economists would recommend. In fact, as I linked to below, the research shows that countries that rely on spending cuts over tax increases are more successful in pulling out of their debt crises.

But what do facts and their own words matter to these guys?


mark said...

Fun facts:
Tax increases wouldn't go into effect until 2013. People implying that Obama wants an immediate increase are uninformed or lying.

Dems want about a 4:1 ratio- budget cuts to tax revenues. That is not "relying" on tax increases.

tfhr said...


Of course they wouldn't go into effect until AFTER the 2012 election. You'd have to be a rube to believe it would be structured any other way.

As for the ratio - why didn't the Dems offer up anything like that over the last four years? Did Obama's first budget cut spending? Second? Oh wait...the Dems can't even put a budget together so I should be real impressed with some ratio formed from thin air.

mark said...

Easy one, tfhr. Dems and Obama have been negligent for the past four years. And repubs and Bush were negligent before that.
It's time to get serious. Better late than never. Everyone has to give a little. Obama is getting blasted by dems. I said long ago that everything should be on the table. It has been a while since I've been able to support Obama, but he is right on this.

tfhr said...

I don't think Obama is right, mark.

I also don't think everyone has to give anymore - we're already working too long and too hard to fund the federal government's addiction to spending.

We can agree that both parties waste insane amounts of our money on their party interests. Can we finally agree that that has to stop?!

How about a balanced budget amendment?

How about TERM LIMITS and an end to career politicians that fatten themselves at our expense? Why not expect public service from our public servants instead of an expectation of bottomless pockets and unrestrained access?