Reader Mike writes in the comment section of “Good News: $1.75 trillion deficit expected:”
While I share some of your frustration with the rising deficit, I think you’re overplaying your hand:
“Hmm, let me think. Why would the new administration try to “cut that amount sharply” before / around 2013? Hmm. I’m sure there’s something going to happen at the end of 2012. What’s that again? O yeah, now I remember: presidential elections! That’s funny. Probably a coincidence I guess.”
Would you expect him to set a goal for 2016? If he did, you’d be criticizing him for presuming he’d be re-elected. He’s made no secret that the goal is to cut the deficit by the end of his first (and maybe only) term. If you’re implying he’s being secretive about his motives, I think you’re just fishing for reasons to criticize Obama. In any case, since most of the deficit reduction will be in the form of tax increases, I’ve never heard anyone argue that tax increases before an election are a good idea, so I don’t see your point. It’s perfectly reasonable for a president to set out goals in 4 year periods, considering the time they serve is broken up in those terms.
This remark is based in the belief that I, or others, would criticize Obama no matter what. Sadly, it’s an incorrect belief. If Obama would do things that make sense, I wouldn’t criticize him (as much as I do now). To me, politics isn’t about people, it’s about policies.
Planning ahead is perfectly fine; in fact, I think that every president needs a vision of where he wants America to be 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and 25 and even 50 years from now and do everything in his power to get there. Governing and lawmaking is planning ahead. If he would plan to close the deficit by 2016 I’d still criticize him for the huge size of it, but I wouldn’t chastize him for expecting (or hoping) he’d be reelected. Besides, if he doesn’t get reelected his successor can close the gap by then as well.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Like mentioned right after the speech to Congress, At what level is he “shooting” to cut too. The deficit it was in 2008 or half of his massive debt increases that he is the cause for?
No matter which way anyone wants to look at it, President Obama is proposing to increase the budget by more than half of President Bush’s increases over 8 full years.
And he’s not even in office a month. Hell thinking out 15 years is down right scary now.
Guess we can all rest easy that he’s going to tax his way out of it.
Michael,
You’re right that it would be reasonable for a president to set goals beyond their first term, so perhaps I overreached a little in my response on that point. However, I also think that 4-year increments are also reasonable goals in some cases as well. So I do think that your implication that he was only setting 2012 as his goal for political reasons to be overly cynical (and I do believe that cynicism is a virtue sometimes, but I don’t see it as being so in this case). If he really is to be successful at slashing the deficit, he will need to raise taxes as well as cut sensitive spending. While some will welcome these changes, both of these things won’t happen without a fight from various sides. So it’s not clear to me that it will be a political winner for him anyway, even if he is successful. If cutting deficits were always politically advantageous, we wouldn’t have them.
But believe me, I agree with most of your other criticisms. As someone who often gets frustrated with the political back and forth, I just get a pet peeve about when I think someone is taking an unnecessary jab, even if I agree with their over-all argument.