Tough

There actually were a small number of people who voted for Barack Obama in last month's election who believed, despite all indications to the contrary, that he would moderate his approach and address growing debt, deficits, and near bankrupt entitlements in some meaningful way. Not a chance.

With the exception of his successful class warfare meme of "taxing the rich," Obama has offered absolutely nothing meaningful to address the fiscal problems we face. Instead, he continues his perpetual campaigning (the only thing at which he excels) demonizing the opposition party with the support of a biased, adoring media.

The GOP isn't making things easier on themselves by adhering to a no tax increase pledge, but at least they recognize the fiscal problems we face and want a more broad-based solution to address them. Obama, as is his M.O., offers absolutely no new ideas in the area of fiscal restraint. Why? Because he doesn't have to. He has been and will be rewarded politically by the dependency class and those on the Left for being fiscally irresponsible. Got it.

Glen Reynolds makes a modest suggestion for the GOP. First the GOP must have the courage to jettison their position on no tax increases. If they do that, they have some leverage. He's what he writes:

Adopt the Bowles-Simpson Plan. The plan was the product of a bipartisan commission, chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, appointed by President Obama to address America's ballooning deficits and national debt. Most experts agree that it's a pretty good plan. President Obama didn't like it because it shrinks government too much.

Tough. It's a plan, which is more than President Obama has offered, and from a bipartisan commission he appointed. Can Obama get away with vetoing that? Can Senate Democrats get away with rejecting it and bringing on the automatic cuts and tax increases of the sequester? Doubtful. Plus, though the press tends to cover for Obama and blame Republicans, media types love Bipartisan Commissions.

Let the Democrat senate reject the bi-partisan plan. Let the President veto it. At least citizens who are not members of the dependency class will then know where the President and his supporters really stand on bi-partisan solutions to major fiscal problems. Might not make any difference, but if we go over the fiscal cliff (not an entirely bad thing, IMO), at least we'll know whose fault it really is.


Addendum:
--------------

Thomas Sowell comments:

No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year. Yet political and media discussions of the financial crisis have been focused overwhelmingly on how to get more tax revenue to pay for past and future spending.

The very catchwords and phrases used by the Obama administration betray how phony this all is. For example, "We are just asking the rich to pay a little more."

As I've noted in earlier posts, if the rich pay all that Obama asks, it will cover our annual budget for exactly 8 days each year. The other 357 days? That's the problem.

Sowell summarizes:

All the political angst and moral melodrama about getting "the rich" to pay "their fair share" is part of a big charade. This is not about economics, it is about politics. Taxing "the rich" will produce a drop in the bucket when compared to the staggering and unprecedented deficits of the Obama administration.

But then again, virtually all of the positions taken by this President are a charade that masks the politics of class envy, rather than the financial health of the nation.