Grim Fairy Tale
Headline from The Washington Post--"Obama's second--term agenda will be shadowed by budget woes."
Right off the bat, here's what Peter Wallsten and Zachary A. Goldfard have to say:
[Even if Obama gets a deal with the Republicans] the country’s grim budget realities will still cast a long shadow—limiting his ambitions as he begins plotting a second-term agenda.
Which grim budget realities are those? The same ones he had four years ago, when we had an impossibly huge deficit and Obama thought he could spend his way out of it?
They go on:
Where Obama entered office four years ago planning to seize a moment of economic crisis as an opportunity for transformational policies such as the $800 billion stimulus and his health care overhaul, he begins his second four years with few, if any, similarly expansive or costly prospects.
Instead, any new spending programs will, by necessity, be small and narrow in scope: repairs to roads and bridges, airport renovations and other infrastructure upgrades, for example, or modest grants to help blighted city neighborhoods.
Obama supporters still complain we didn't spend enough (and, of course, didn't tax enough). The only reason Obama doesn't have grand new spending plans--above the huge increases he plans as a matter of course--is that Republicans control the House and have a say in the Senate. In fact, the only reason he got most of what he got in his first term--really first two years--is that the opposing party had no say in anything, and even then he had trouble convincing Democrats to go along entirely with his agenda.
2 Comments:
...is that the opposing party refused its say on any new intiiative, hoping that the President alone would take the blame for all the fiscal woes following on the heals of the 2008 meltdown.
That strategy did not work so well for them.
The opposition was because they honestly felt the President was backing dangerous programs that would hurt the country, but the Dems were thrilled to finally force their ideas on an unwilling public, going against everything they'd said about bipartisanship back when they were in the minority. No point in blaming Repubs for their opposition, since they lost those votes and the Dems should now be luxuriating in the great recovery since they got about everything they wanted.
So what happened? It cost them the House, quite a few governors, and a filibuster-proof Senate.
Why the voters went relatively easy on Obama in 2012 (don't forget he lost millions of votes) is a complex issue (dealing with demographics, get-out-the-vote machinery and many other issues) that deserves further study, but that Obama would have a lot more grand ideas with grand spending attached if he still was in control is rather obvious, though this seems to elude the Post.
Post a Comment
<< Home