As Reason points out, Obama didn't exactly "inherit" the deficiet. Yes, it was large when he got there, but the reality is that he was in the Senate when at least SOME of it was created, and his party - the party clapping at all the digs at the previous administration's deficiet creation - have been in power in the Senate since 2006.
That brings me to point numero 2, which is that I thought Obama represented "change" from the old ways of doing things? Really? Blaming a president a month gone from office for problems that are probably at least 40% the responsibility of your party is "change"? First, I don't think the partisan "blame him, its all his fault, I'm a pure angel in all of this" game represents much of a change. Second, I'm not sure what it accomplishes. It just bugs me when I see the democrats stand up and clap at Obama's "lets get rid of this deficit" lines as if they adhore them, especially when the line should really end with "that we all created."
Further, his let's cut the deficit talk is kind of hard to believe, since 3 out of every 4 sentences he spoke involved new spending, new programs, or an expansion of some kind ON TOP OF the trillion dollar stimulus bill he just signed. Sigh.
But hey, he's found $2 trillion to cut over the next 10 years (or 5 percent). My question: If these programs are "wasteful & ineffective" (his words) why are keeping them around for 10 years?
No comments:
Post a Comment