There is a new book out that quotes Larry Sommers as saying, Re  : meetings 
he had
for  a time in the Obama WH, speaking of the economy, words to the  effect 
--
" We are up the creek. This president is making mistakes that simply 
never would have occurred to Clinton. "
 
NOT my intention of exonerating WJC of anything at all, but about this  
matter, my
impression is that Sommers was directly on target. Which is why, as good as 
 the 
article is, for the writer to pin his hopes on BHO is chimerical, or just  
plain stupid.
 
But, yeah, the "Cut Taxes" party  which formerly was known as the  
Republican Party,
is anti-inspirational. Tax cuts as the solution to every problem  is a 
formula for frustration
and has little to do with fiscal responsibility. This mindset is  
simple-mindedness
at its very worse.
 
Billy
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 
 
message dated 9/21/2011 10:26:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:



_http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-
our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?_r=1&smid=tw-NYTimesFriedman&seid=auto&pagewante
d=all_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?_r=1&smid=tw-NYTimesFriedman&seid=auto&pa
gewanted=all) 



 
Are We Going to Roll Up Our Sleeves or Limp On?
It becomes clearer every week that our country faces a big choice: We can  
either have a hard decade or a bad century.  
We can either roll up our sleeves and do what’s needed to overcome our  
post-cold war excesses and adapt to the demands of the 21st century or we can  
just keep limping into the future.  
Given those stark choices, one would hope that our politicians would rise  
to the challenge by putting forth fair and credible recovery proposals that  
match the scale of our debt problem and contain the three elements that any 
 serious plan must have: spending cuts, increases in revenues and 
investments  in the sources of our strength. But that, alas, is not what we’re 
getting,  which is why there remains an opening for an independent Third Party 
candidate  in the 2012 campaign.  
The Republicans have come nowhere near rising to our three-part challenge  
because the G.O.P. is no longer a “conservative” party, offering a  
conservative formula for American renewal. The G.O.P. has been captured by a  
radical antitax wing, and the party’s leaders are too afraid to challenge it.  
What would real conservatives be offering now?  
They would understand, as President Eisenhower did, that at this crucial  
hinge in our history we cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be  
investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education,  
immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would  
understand 
that you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which  are 
precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with  its 
brutal ups and downs.  
Real conservatives would understand that we cannot maintain our vital  
defense budget without an appropriate tax base. Real conservatives would  
understand that we can simplify the tax code, get rid of all the  
special-interest 
giveaways and raise revenues at the same time. Real  conservatives would 
never cut taxes and add a new Medicare entitlement in the  middle of two wars. 
And real conservatives would understand that the Tea Party  has become the 
Tea Kettle Party. It is people in real distress about our  predicament 
letting off steam by trying to indiscriminately cut everywhere.  But steam 
without an engine — without a strategic plan for American greatness  based on 
spending cuts, tax reform and investments in tomorrow — will take us  nowhere. 
Countries that don’t invest in the future tend to not do well there.  Real 
conservatives know that.  
I’ve argued that the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the  
G.O.P. has become would be for the president to put out in detail his  version 
of a credible “Grand Bargain” and then go sell it to the country. But  that 
proposal had to include real long-term spending cuts in Medicare and  Soci
al Security so they can be preserved, tax reform that raises revenues by  
asking more of the rich — but also demands something from everyone — and an  
agenda for investing in our growth engines, like schools and infrastructure,  
right now to stimulate the economy today in ways that also increase our  
productivity for tomorrow. That plan should have been a combination of the  
Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction proposal and Mr. Obama’s new jobs agenda  
announced last week.  
Such a credible, fair “Obama Plan” for deficit reduction married to a  
credible jobs initiative would have captured America’s radical center and made  
life very difficult for the G.O.P., which can’t accept any tax increases 
and  has no investment agenda other than tax cuts. It was the only chance for  
maneuvering the G.O.P. into a Grand Bargain.  
Mr. Obama gave us the credible $447 billion jobs program, but his deficit  
reduction plan announced on Monday to pay for it and trim long-term spending 
 does not rise to the scale we need. It may motivate his base, but it will 
not  attract independents and centrists and, therefore, it will not corner 
the  Republicans.  
As The Washington Post reported: “The latest Obama plan ‘doesn’t produce  
any more in realistic savings than the plan they offered in April,’ said 
_Maya MacGuineas_ (http://crfb.org/biography/maya-macguineas-0) , the  
president of the bipartisan _Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget_ 
(http://crfb.org/) .  ‘They’ve filled in details, repackaged it and replaced 
one 
gimmick with  another. They don’t even stabilize the debt. This is just not 
enough.’ The  most disheartening development, MacGuineas and others said, is 
Obama
’s  decision to count $1.1 trillion in savings from the drawdown of troops 
in Iraq  and Afghanistan toward his debt-reduction total. Because Obama has 
no  intention of continuing war spending at last year’s elevated levels, 
that $1.1  trillion would never have been spent.”  
A Financial Times editorial summarized my feelings: “American voters are  
not looking for champions of their preferred redistributive stance, but  
responsible attitudes to the country’s challenges. If Mr. Obama suggests a  
millionaire’s tax can save ordinary voters from pain, he will fail,  
economically and politically.”  
My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans  
will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear 
is  that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns. In which case, 
the  rest of us will just sit here, hostages to fortune, orphans of a 
political  system gone mad, hunkering down for a bad century.  




-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community  
<[email protected]>
Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ 
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) 
Radical  Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ 
(http://radicalcentrism.org/) 



-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to