We’ve had some people bitching and moaning about us excessively criticizing “The One” lately, so we figured we’d give our wrists a break today and let the New York Times and LA Times give you their thoughts …
First, from the NYT’s story, entitled “Obama’s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas …”
The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.
The Obama budget, a bold, even radical departure from recent history, wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables, would sharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Mr. Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.
More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years. They do so first by rewriting the tax code and, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of the middle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowing educational gains.
And from the LA Times story, entitled “Obama’s Budget Is The End Of An Era …”
Not since Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt has a president moved to expand the role of government so much on so many fronts — and with such a demanding sense of urgency.
The scope of President Obama’s ambition was laid bare in the budget blueprint issued Thursday.
The budget would account for 24.1% of next year’s estimated gross domestic product, one of the highest percentages since World War II, and would raise taxes, redistribute income, spend more on social programs than on defense, and implement policies that touch almost every aspect of Americans’ lives — their banks, healthcare, schools, even the air they breathe.
Obama’s spending plan would cost $3.55 trillion and run a $1.75 trillion deficit next year alone … both numbers are unprecendented in American history.
By Mickey Blue Eyes February 27, 2009 at 9:18 am
The photo of Obama’s campaign rally that accompanies the post is most appropriate. When will people learn that raising taxes on people who create jobs, taking money away from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn’t, and giving the imperial federal gov’t prostate-test-level powers into your life has always ended in failure, oppression, and destruction (economic and social)?
How does giving money and “free” stuff to people going to motivate them to get a job and be a productive member of society? Giving a way “free” stuff only promotes laziness, dependence, and erodes self-worth. What neighborhood do you want to drive through with your windows down and doors unlocked? A neighborhood where everyone is employed or a neighborhood where everyone lives in Section 8 housing, collects food stamps and a welfare check, and able-bodied people loiter on street corners?
Does Obama and his myrmidons actually believe that despite the same philosophy being such an utter failure in Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea, and every Central and South American banana republic is going to work THIS TIME?
By Pat Hendrix February 27, 2009 at 9:51 am
Christ, you’re right. Now I see it. His radical agenda – to lower middle class tax rates, improve education and reform a broken health care system will send the country off a cliff.
Seriously, you give guys ever listen to yourselves?
And though I don’t dispute the notion that 1.75 trillion dollars is an enormous sum of money, but the real issue in the long term is entitlement spending, which Obama has said he will reform in a “grand bargain” with Republicans and Democrats. Fix that, a one time shot the arm is nothing.
By Roofus February 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Pat,
Hugh Hewitt’s blog has a post revealing Obama’s “deceptive” (his words, not mine) attack on charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions. Your response?
By Pat Hendrix February 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Roofus,
You’re asking me to read Hugh Hewitt as objective journalism? He’s almost as nuts as Mickey up at the top. By the way, Mick, the tired, angry, fact-free Republican class/race warfare boiler plate is spent. Get another playbook. That one only appeals to people too lazy or dumb to read.
By Roofus February 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Is any “journalism” truly “objective” anymore?