Mickey Kaus says it better than me:
[Tuesday] night Obama staked “his claim to decades of well-worn political detritus,” writes Ed Kilgore, who accurately notes that the president’s plans “could easily have been harvested from any number of interchangeable speeches given during the last 20 years—not just by presidents but by members of Congress, governors, mayors, and CEOs—from both parties.”
A brilliant move, Kilgore argues. By talking grandly and optimistically while embracing some “small familiar ideas for creating jobs and growth,” Obama is forcing the GOP to either go after Social Security and Medicare on their own—which is very perilous to a party whose base has become older voters—or demand unprecedented cuts for those popular public investments that were the centerpiece of his speech.
Kilgore’s right, I think, as a matter of political strategy. If the economy keeps growing, Obama’s new, comfortingly mainstream platform of familiar locker-room exhortations and familiar medium-sized plans will be hard to beat. But as a matter of governing it’s fundamentally irresponsible, because it leaves to Republicans the unpopular job of cleaning up the country’s fiscal mess, which means we’re less likely to even make a start at it until 2013 at best. (If Obama has the electoral upper hand on the budget-cutting question, why would it make political sense for him to cut a grand deal before the election? It’s more likely Republicans will back off.)
I’m not saying Obama’s (and Bush’s) stimulus spending and health care spending wasn’t justified. I’m saying at some point soon we’re supposed to bring deficits back into a normal range. Obama used to talk as if his idea was to spend in the short term and balance the budget in the long term. That’s gone. Last night he sided with the left and the pollsters against significant cuts in Social Security—as Kilgore put it, he’s “refused to offer Republicans the cover they crave for ‘entitlement reform.'” Cutting deficits costs votes, a mistake Ronald Reagan for one learned not to make (at least not without a Social Security crisis) before coasting to a second term in 1984. In essence, the president seems to have chosen his own reelection over the nation’s long-term economic security. Obama comes first. The future he is winning is his own.
Like I said: a typical politician, putting his short-term interests ahead of the country’s long-term interests, like they all do. He was supposed to be the Chosen One? Well, he’s not.
I think you are seriously over reacting. First he wasn’t the chosen one. Second, he has a whole year of President’ing to do, lots can happen between now and then. Third, perhaps its not wise to pick a fight with the GOP from the get go? Perhaps its a good time to be patient and take things a little more deliberately. The deficit is a big problem, no pun intended, and its going to take a while to fix it. A few lines in one speech isn’t the be all end all. Not saying you can’t or shouldn’t be dissapointed, thats fine. Should he have said more? Been more bold? Ok, i’ll buy that. But again, this isn’t the end of the world.
First he wasn’t the chosen one.
Oh yes he is. Er, was.
David, you sound like the grasshopper who sang all summer. When is the time to take on the deficit? When summer is over and you’re starving to death? No. How about now?
I still hold some small hope that if re-elected (and with a Republican Congress), Obama may tackle meaningful fiscal reform. But his SOTU didn’t indicate any serious intention to deal with what I consider the single most important issue facing our country–our unsustainable budget.
David, I addressed much of this on the earlier thread. It isn’t just about “a few lines in one speech.” Again:
It’s not the “end of the world,” necessarily, but it’s a clear indication Obama has no serious intention of tackling this problem until 2013 at the earliest. And that’s seriously disappointing, because although “the chosen one” is obvious, deliberate, and hopefully somewhat humorous hyperbole — that was the intent, anyway — it refers to something real, which is that Obama, although never perfect or saintly or godly, was supposed to be “different” from your run-of-the-mill, cynical, scheming politicians — your Hillarys, your Romneys, your typical slimeballs. He was supposed to operate on an at least somewhat more idealistic plane, one that isn’t afraid to take risks and make big moves for the betterment of the country. Realistic liberals never expected him to completely transcend politics, but there was a legitimate hope that he would at least try to be more responsible and serious and adult about these problems than his predecessors. The lingering shards of that fool’s hope were, for me, completely dashed by this speech. That’s what I mean by “you were supposed to be the chosen one.”
He took on health care, he took on financial reform, he took on DADT and got all of them through, even if they weren’t as much as liberals wanted in some cases. It’s not like he’s been sitting around doing nothing.
@Becky – And Brendan sounds like Chicken LIttle, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” As I said, there is room to be dissapointed and I’m not saying he should just ignore the deficit forever (if he even is, I imagine there are things in the works we don’t know about yet, plans being made, proposals being polished). I’m just saying that it seems like Brendan’s arguments are overreacting. One can believe that Obama should be taking a more serious look at the deficit problem now without assuming that he’s never gonna do it and/or if he doesn’t do it now its allready too late.
Here’s the thing, David: I think that Brendan, Becky, and I already suspect that it is close to being too late. Just look around: sovereign debt is becoming an issue in other countries. Now, they were run incredibly badly. But the US hasn’t been a paragon of fiscal virtue either. The question is whether we’re on the same path of general economic stagnation, one that leaves our children in a horrid fiscal mess.
And thus, the disappointment. Because it may already BE too late to deal with the deficit. Surely, if our politicians keep putting it off each year, hoping somebody else will have to deal with it, it WON’T be dealt with until we are at a crisis point. It’s an urgent problem not being taken with any seriousness.
One more point, David: is Chicken Little really crazy if the sky IS falling?
Hillarity. Obama talking about sunsetting the tax-cuts for the rich, would lower the deficit, but Mickey Kaus forgot about that? I mean it was 4 weeks ago, afterall. And Obama is suppose to cut Social Security? What’s up with that? Americans pay/paid into that their whole entire lives and is suppose to remain untouched waiting for them after a certain age. What kind of crap is it to take away people’s savings (essentially) because of the fiscal failings of our elected leaders, now that’s being a socialist.
Sandy, do you really believe the money you pay into Social Security is being “saved” somewhere for you to draw from somewhere down the line?
It’s that kind of ignorance that explains why we’ve made no progress on reforming Social Security for the past twenty years.
@Sandy – I’m with AMLTrojan here, thats NOT how social security works. I’m actually all for gradually lowering the benefit level to what is sustainable. Personally i’m basically not planning on social security for my retirement, whatever I get will be a bonus.
And Obama is suppose to cut Social Security? What’s up with that? Americans pay/paid into that their whole entire lives and is suppose to remain untouched waiting for them after a certain age. What kind of crap is it to take away people’s savings (essentially) because of the fiscal failings of our elected leaders, now that’s being a socialist.
Social Security is an insurance policy, not a savings account.
gahrie, it’s not an insurance policy either. There are no actuarial tables, risk formulas, and premiums. SS is simply a socialistic wealth transfer program from current workers to current retirees. That’s it.