"Admonish 'em Sternly, Barry"The Constitution dictates that a presidential term lasts four years. But barring overwhelming majorities in Congress, the governing part lasts about 18 months, from inauguration to the start of campaigning for mid-term elections. After that, it's time to start running for re-election. So it is that the excellent economic proposals that President Barack Obama laid out in two speeches this week — on Labor Day in Milwaukee and Wednesday in Cleveland — probably will go nowhere. This is particularly true for this president in this season of deep political discontent. So, as much as the nation could use the jobs created by a $50 billion infrastructure bank, as stimulating as it would be to allow businesses to write off 100 percent of the cost of new plants and equipment in 2011, and as prescient as tax credits for research and development would be, they have little chance of being enacted into law. These ideas, in normal times, would have broad support among Republicans. But these are not normal times. This is the season of "No." Congress will adjourn for the campaign in early October. Between now and then, there is zero chance that Republicans will allow Mr. Obama anything resembling a victory — no matter how good it would be for the country. Mr. Obama understands that. In his speech in Cleveland, he acknowledged that "people are frustrated and angry and anxious about the future. I understand that. I also understand that in a political campaign, the easiest thing for the other side to do is ride this fear and anger all the way to Election Day." This was a Campaign 2008 speech, with Mr.
The campaign ahead, Mr. Obama said, "is about moving from an attitude that said 'What's in it for me' to one that asks, 'What's best for America? What's best for all our workers? What's best for all our businesses? What's best for our children?'" But this was a speech curiously without passion, less "Give 'em hell, Harry" than "Admonish 'em sternly, Barry." Two years ago, Mr. Obama's high-toned calls for common ground resonated with a bewildered electorate. His GOP opponents and their major corporate underwriters have co-opted that anger. Mr. Obama is going to need some fire in his belly. If ever there was a populist issue, it is the Republicans' call to maintain the 2001 Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while many Americans are suffering. That some Democrats have joined in that call makes it all the more important for the president to lay out the differences in scalding language. Apparently, he doesn't do scalding. "(W)ith all the Republicans' talk about wanting to shrink the deficit, they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next 10 years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 to folks who are already millionaires." Truman would have left it at "Tax Cuts for Millionaires!" But Professor Obama went on to explain that millionaires "are folks (folks!) who are less likely to spend the money, which is why economists don't think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy." Zzzzzzzz. Reasoning with mules is not a good idea. Bring the 2-by-4 next time. REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
