In President Obama’s eyes, America will soon be a land flowing with milk and honey: a land where GDP will increase by 4.4 percent and unemployment will steadily drop to 7.5 percent, and where college graduates aren’t sleeping on parents’ sofas.
Perhaps he’s envisioning a time when he is out of office.
For Obama, all the world’s a stage, and he’s desperately trying to keep his act. He strategically unveiled his $3.8 trillion spending plan for 2013 in an address to the swing state of Virginia. Just in time for Valentine’s Day, he added a bit of “candy-coated” rhetoric to his speech. Obviously, the words “hope” and “change” seem to be losing their effect.
It seems almost silly to mention Obama’s proposed budget at this point in the game. Everyone (even Obama’s closest allies) knows it will not even come close to passage in its entirety, and Obama is likely to be out of office by that time.
He will undoubtedly try to portray his “revolutionary” Keynesian concepts as sacrificial lambs abandoned in his efforts to “compromise” with the Right — all in anticipation of the November election.
Strangely enough, his economic forecasts were higher than those of the Congressional Budget Office and other private economists. Then again, when it comes to economic growth, Obama knows best. After all, his stimulus package worked “miracles,” and his investment in Solyndra marked the start of “sustainable” green investment.
The President demonstrated he is a master at spending money. If only he was better at producing results, America would be on the right track.
What ever happened to Obama’s promise to halve the $1.3 trillion federal deficit that President Bush left him? Did he not say at the beginning of his term that this meant “taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control?”
Where is this sense of “responsibility” two years later? Why has he suddenly changed his position? Is the stale economy an excuse to be irresponsible?
Obama is caught between appeasing his leftist, “deficit spending” allies and following through on his promises to the American people. Based on the recent contraception mandate, this small minority of “progressives” seems to be more important.
The administration commented, “We must transform our budget from one focused on speculating, spending and borrowing to one constructed on the solid foundation of educating, innovating and building.”
But how does Obama plan to halt this rampant government spending? By borrowing another trillion this year.
Are we missing something? The components of the proposal are obviously only debating points for his upcoming election race, but how far must we go before this “master of rhetoric” has officially insulted the intelligence of the American people.
Obama believes he can capitalize on Americans’ preoccupation with unemployment and dramatically increase our national debt in the name of jobs. We have no guarantee that he will work toward lowering the debt in the coming years, so why should we trust him?
To advance his illusion, he wants a new $350 billion stimulus. Interestingly enough, Obama did not mention the word “stimulus” once in his speech, and regurgitated many components of his poorly received jobs bill.
Meanwhile, the tax code remains virtually untouched. The only major change is the addition of the so-called “Buffet Rule” — a 30 percent tax on millionaires, inspired by a man who makes all his money through investments, and thus, has no direct attachment to the job market. And it seemed almost expected that the Bush tax cuts would have no place on the proposal. Even a quick reference to the name “Bush” would be bad juju for President Obama during this election cycle.
Of course, the more serious solvency issues of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare are obviously out of the question. Too bad these are some of our largest expenditures.
In essence, the Obama budget proposal is doomed to fail, and Obama can’t possibly think it will turn out any other way. As the President himself knows, this is just another phony bravado that may or may not benefit him by virtue of its rejection. It is a way for him to say “I tried” without putting any skin in the game.
Will Americans see through it? Your guess is as good as mine.