You used to post here as [email protected]
On Feb 21, 9:01 am, Mercury <[email protected]> wrote: > I also don't believe people "think" about the kind of mess Obama is > having to deal with, This is the WORST economic crisis since the > Great > Depression.. People are just obviously ignorant and want "change" > ASAP. But those same ones were also very quiet about Bush spending > billions every single month on some stupid war! > > I dont know why my name "mercury" name is not coming up on this board. > Its flustering me! > > On Feb 21, 7:14 am, "Sumerian.." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > shersy17 wrote: > > > Obama Beats Down Another Big Bush > > Lie > > By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly > > Posted on > > February 20, 2009, > > President Obama has only been in office for a > > month, and I'm already tired of the phrase "change you can believe in." > > When he > > does something great, his supporters use it ("That's change we can > > believe in!"). When he does something misguided, his detractors use it > > ("Whatever this is, it's not chance we can believe in"). This has become > > rather > > tiresome. > > > That said, the whole point of "change you can believe in," when it was used > > during the presidential campaign, was to highlight Obama's commitment to > > changing the way the system works. Americans had been misled so often about > > so > > many aspects of government over the last eight years, Obama wanted to return > > some integrity and intellectual honesty to the political process. The > > cliche was > > practically intended to be literal -- he would change the system, so that > > we could believe in it again. > > > And with that in mind, this > > is exactly the kind of change Obama promised to deliver. > > > For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four > > accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit > > projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget > > that > > is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would > > otherwise appear, according to administration officials. > > > The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, > > Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster > > responses. > > > But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative > > minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy > > from > > using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax. > > > While budget sleight of hand and "magic asterisks" had become the norm, OMB > > Director Peter Orszag explained, "The president prefers to tell the truth, > > rather than make the numbers look better by pretending." > > > It's about damn time. The smoke-and-mirrors approach to which we've grown > > accustomed was ridiculous. It was a problem policymakers recognized, but > > didn't > > want to talk about, and had no interest in fixing. It's not only heartening > > to > > see Obama bring some sanity to the process, it will also have key practical > > consequences -- honest budgets lead to better policy making. > > > Noam > > Scheiber added that it will be "kinda helpful to have a budget that actually > > means something when you're debating public policy," and added the political > > upside to using honest budget numbers for a change: "Why not make the > > long-term > > deficit look as large as possible at the beginning of your term? Not only > > can > > you fairly blame your predecessor at that point; the bigger the deficit > > looks, > > the easier it is to show progress, which Obama will need to do as he runs > > for > > re-election. To take one example, you can't claim savings from drawing down > > in > > Iraq if you don't put Iraq spending on the budget in the first place (which > > Bush > > mostly didn't)." > > > I think that's largely right, but the politics might be more complicated > > than > > that. By bringing some integrity to the budget, Obama will also show some > > steep deficits, which will likely cause a major-league trantrum on the > > Hill. > > > John Cole offers the administration some excellent advice: > > > The very first thing I would do if I were Peter Orszag and company, and > > this is one of the very few times I actually hope someone in government > > listens to me, is to go back and re-score the last decade or so of budgets > > using the new accounting system, so when they roll this out they can say > > "Here > > is what this year's budget would have looked like under the old system. > > Here > > is what it looks like under the new system. Here are the past ten years > > worth > > of budgets under the old system. Here they are under the new system." For > > political reasons, this simply has to be done. > > > Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online > > blog, Political Animal. His > > background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a > > variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American > > Prospect, > > the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk > > of > > the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder > > Show," > > and XM Radio's "POTUS '08." > > © 2009 Washington Monthly All rights > > reserved. > > View this story online at:http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www. > > washingtonmonthl y.com/128032/ > > > ======= > > S1000+ > > ======= > > > --- On Sat, 2/21/09, [email protected] < wrote:- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
