More gas for the fire
How are President Obama’s latest economic proposals different from all of the other unworkable plans that he has served up over the past three years?
Specifically, to what extent would the additional revenues that might result from raising income taxes on high earners and a variety of fees on everyone offset the $1 trillionplus annual deficits that have become the norm under this president, assuming of course that they were all spent for that purpose?
And how could they all be spent on deficit reduction when the president is proposing to increase the shortfall substantially with a $447 billion “jobs bill” and when it is going to increase steadily on its own because of the demands of unreformed entitlement programs, the costly implementation of Obamacare and the funding of other new initiatives? Isn’t there some double or even triple counting going on here?
What has changed since December when the president told us that raising taxes at a time of high unemployment and anemic economic growth was a very bad idea, that it will diminish funds in the private sector that would otherwise be invested to create new jobs? Is the economy suddenly booming again? Have I missed something?
Does the president really believe that this stim- ulus, aka jobs bill, will succeed when the last one, which was twice as large, seems only to have then made matters worse?
Where will he find the elusive shovel-ready jobs this time? If they are already there, why didn’t he fund them before? If they are not, how long is it going to take to go through the typically multi-year planning, permitting, bidding, litigation and bureaucratic foolishness processes?
Speaking of bureaucrats, when is he going to do something about reining in the hordes of government regulators whose oppressive excesses in the application of his misguided policies are substantially responsible for the suffocation of our economy?
Finally, why is the president so reluctant to provide the details of these measures, especially the particulars, if any, of his spending cuts, so that we can try to understand what appear to be their many flaws and attempt to reconcile their multiple inconsistencies? Why does he instead offer up only slogans, soundbites, generalities and ad hominem attacks on dissenters together with demands that his proposals be enacted immediately? Aren’t we once again being asked to “pass the bill so (we) can find out what’s in it”? Barry C. Steel Phoenix, Maryland