Shoot For The Moon
Feb. 27th, 2009 09:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsObama's budget is a very broad package of ideas. There's an emphasis on higher education, health care reform, and to attach global warming by encouraging new technologies and using penalties and incentives to business. Subsidies for farmers would be cut (primarily because large corporate farms take the most of this money and taxes on the wealthy will be raised, if Obama gets his way.
For those who were hoping for more change from Obama with the stimulus, for those who thought that it didn't go far enough, should look to the budget. This is where the president is making his case for his campaign promises.
The budget couldn't be more different from those put out by George W Bush, well, except for the large budget deficit, of course. Still, there's actual cuts in some programs - something that the deficit ignoring Bushies never made much of an effort to do - and there's a new transparency at least in one realm. Obama actually puts the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars in the budget. A cost that had always been handled off budget as to not offend the American public.
Basically the Obama Administration is looking to make a fundamental change of direction in the budget, one that throws out thirty years of Reaganomics and harkens back to a more FDR route. There's an emphasis on government taking a larger role and using more money from the rich to fund projects to benefit the greater whole. Some call it "Robin Hood" others will label it socialist, or worse.
Of course many who shout such things don't truly know the meaning of the word socialist, and lack understanding that we have been a socialist nation, albeit less so than many other Western nations, for a long, long time.
Many look to change the problems of economic inequality that have continued to grow over the last 30 years, much of it increased to nearly a breaking point in the last eight. From this I seem to get the idea that Obama and company understand that a strong middle class is key to America's future, but I worry about trying to restructure and pay for so much directly from government programs, entitlements and subsidies. I look for smart spending and directed payments, not a general doling out of money.
I understand taking advantage of our current economic despair to make large, sweeping changes and to pull up the middle class. It's time to encourage better salaries and I'm even for government taking over healthcare from employers, something that we know is currently preventing employers from hiring and having them cut salaries and benefits. The private sector's backs are eventually going to break. I'm just not sure our government is up to the task.
What I'm hoping, and I'm likely naive about this, is that President Obama is just taking his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's quote about not letting a serious crisis go to waste to heart and trying to put everything on the table so it can be discussed and likely whittled down. He went for middle ground on the stimulus, but decided to shoot for the moon on the budget knowing that he would get only part of what he actually wants to accomplish. The proof will be how hard he pushes his agenda, and what he stumps for.
Now we will get to see if Congress is serious about fiscal responsibility or if they go back to their ways for the last eight years. What congressperson will say no to earmarks, and who will look to control entitlement spending? We can expect Republican's make a big stand and say no to everything, but will they actually bring anything to the table? Can they work with the president without just being obstructionist? We know that the Democrats could push much of the Agenda through without a single Republican vote if necessary, so it behooves the two groups to actually work together.
The Republican's have little to stand on after the spending binge they went on over the last eight years, but if they want to remake their party, now is the time.
There's smart ways to work with the president and try to be responsible with the people's money. The Obama administration has apparently put it thin Congress' court now. We know what Obama's goals are, but what are the priorities of Congress?
At least it's out there on paper, what the agenda is, at least fiscally. We know where Obama is heading but we need to know if the efforts to reduce the deficit spending over the next four years are going to work, we need to know what will be change and possibly cut in entitlements where we don't end up prolonging this economic crisis. We need to know more about the plans for healthcare and the details of rescuing banks that currently are "too big to fail". The devil is in the details.
Now we wait for the debate to ramp up. If you thought the stimulus package fight was nasty, you haven't seen nothing yet. Obama won't get everything he asks for, presidents rarely do, but perhaps it is shooting for the moon to get more than he bargained for.
For those who were hoping for more change from Obama with the stimulus, for those who thought that it didn't go far enough, should look to the budget. This is where the president is making his case for his campaign promises.
The budget couldn't be more different from those put out by George W Bush, well, except for the large budget deficit, of course. Still, there's actual cuts in some programs - something that the deficit ignoring Bushies never made much of an effort to do - and there's a new transparency at least in one realm. Obama actually puts the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars in the budget. A cost that had always been handled off budget as to not offend the American public.
Basically the Obama Administration is looking to make a fundamental change of direction in the budget, one that throws out thirty years of Reaganomics and harkens back to a more FDR route. There's an emphasis on government taking a larger role and using more money from the rich to fund projects to benefit the greater whole. Some call it "Robin Hood" others will label it socialist, or worse.
Of course many who shout such things don't truly know the meaning of the word socialist, and lack understanding that we have been a socialist nation, albeit less so than many other Western nations, for a long, long time.
Many look to change the problems of economic inequality that have continued to grow over the last 30 years, much of it increased to nearly a breaking point in the last eight. From this I seem to get the idea that Obama and company understand that a strong middle class is key to America's future, but I worry about trying to restructure and pay for so much directly from government programs, entitlements and subsidies. I look for smart spending and directed payments, not a general doling out of money.
I understand taking advantage of our current economic despair to make large, sweeping changes and to pull up the middle class. It's time to encourage better salaries and I'm even for government taking over healthcare from employers, something that we know is currently preventing employers from hiring and having them cut salaries and benefits. The private sector's backs are eventually going to break. I'm just not sure our government is up to the task.
What I'm hoping, and I'm likely naive about this, is that President Obama is just taking his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's quote about not letting a serious crisis go to waste to heart and trying to put everything on the table so it can be discussed and likely whittled down. He went for middle ground on the stimulus, but decided to shoot for the moon on the budget knowing that he would get only part of what he actually wants to accomplish. The proof will be how hard he pushes his agenda, and what he stumps for.
Now we will get to see if Congress is serious about fiscal responsibility or if they go back to their ways for the last eight years. What congressperson will say no to earmarks, and who will look to control entitlement spending? We can expect Republican's make a big stand and say no to everything, but will they actually bring anything to the table? Can they work with the president without just being obstructionist? We know that the Democrats could push much of the Agenda through without a single Republican vote if necessary, so it behooves the two groups to actually work together.
The Republican's have little to stand on after the spending binge they went on over the last eight years, but if they want to remake their party, now is the time.
There's smart ways to work with the president and try to be responsible with the people's money. The Obama administration has apparently put it thin Congress' court now. We know what Obama's goals are, but what are the priorities of Congress?
At least it's out there on paper, what the agenda is, at least fiscally. We know where Obama is heading but we need to know if the efforts to reduce the deficit spending over the next four years are going to work, we need to know what will be change and possibly cut in entitlements where we don't end up prolonging this economic crisis. We need to know more about the plans for healthcare and the details of rescuing banks that currently are "too big to fail". The devil is in the details.
Now we wait for the debate to ramp up. If you thought the stimulus package fight was nasty, you haven't seen nothing yet. Obama won't get everything he asks for, presidents rarely do, but perhaps it is shooting for the moon to get more than he bargained for.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 06:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 05:13 pm (UTC)HUGS!
no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 06:35 pm (UTC)It used to be that the off-election year is when things actually happened, but now there seems to be no off-years, just a constant campaign.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 05:48 pm (UTC)I am pleased that we will know the cost of war, so to speak. Maybe then we can go "You know, we can be in Iraq for two days, or pay for the bank bailout..." sort of scenarios. Maybe that'll get people being honest.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 06:40 pm (UTC)I'm in favor of the new budget transparency. At least, unlike Bush, he's putting things out there for discussion rather than just trying to hide it from everyone. The more we hear about the last 8 years, the worse it gets.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 01:09 am (UTC)I suspect the goal was the set a new "bar" for the entire position of president. In other words, it won't be possible to sneak anything into the budget in the future without getting congress to agree and I think they'd be hard pressed after the mess that we are in now.
At least not for the next generation or two.