Obama's Transparency Evident
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
And I'm really starting to like some of what he's saying. He's starting to sound like a conservative.[[In-content Ad]]In his press conference, he talked about how he would stimulate the economy to the tune of $800 billion or so and how budget cuts would have to be made to help pay for it.
Said O, 'We can't sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of politicians, lobbyists or interest groups.'
Now that's what I'm talking about. That's what John McCain kept saying during the campaign. Remember?
O didn't say what would be cut from the budget - his team is working on that. But budget cutting? Great idea. I love it. My sincere hope is that he really means it and follows through.
Some of my liberal friends have this whole "how dare you" attitude toward me when I question anything O does.
One of them even characterized my concerns as being "pathological." Another said since O hasn't even taken office yet, I really just need to chill out.
Well, maybe, but they need to tell that to a whole cadre of liberal bloggers and Obamaniacs who are wailing and gnashing their teeth over what they're seeing so far from their guy.
Because the stuff I like as a conservative, they can't stand as liberals.
The thrust of O's campaign was "change."
Two core promises he made over and over again were that he would dismantle the good ol' boy network in Washington and roll back the W tax cuts.
I clearly remember him vilifying the W tax policy. The absolute centerpiece of his campaign was rolling back those tax cuts to the wealthy.
You remember all the speeches - $4 billion to Exxon, hundreds of thousands to rich corporate CEOs, nothing ever trickles down to the middle class.
You also remember he was going to raise taxes on everybody who made more than $250,000 (or $200,000) and he told us repeatedly that under his plan, 95 percent of working Americans would get a tax cut.
Well, not so much these days.
O policy wonks are strongly suggesting the W tax cuts may just be allowed to run out on their own in 2011. No need to roll them back right away as suggested during the campaign.
And when a reporter asked O straight up if those tax hikes on the rich were coming, he said, "whether that's done through repeal or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on." How very non-transparent of him.
Now, from my point of view, this is a good thing. I'm glad O is being disingenuous on taxes. I think W's tax policy was working. It actually generated a record $2.7 trillion in fiscal 2007. (Spending is another story, of course.)
And raising taxes on the most productive segment of society while trying to dodge a financial crisis and convince consumers to start spending seemed dumb to me anyway.
So hey, all you rich people out there. It looks like you get to keep your money for another couple of years anyway.
I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. He's not doing what he said he would be doing but that's OK because it's driving the liberals crazy.
When I point stuff like this out to my liberal friends they say they're glad their candidate is willing to change his mind and adapt to changes in the economy. As if the economy is vastly different today than it was a month ago.
But I know - deep down - they're seething that O has now embraced the W tax policy.
And as for the good ol' boys?
So far, the Team O team is loaded with Washington insiders. These guys (and gals) certainly aren't going to need a GPS unit to find their way around the halls of power in the nation's capital.
The new treasury secretary is Timothy Geithner, current New York Federal Reserve Bank president. He first joined the treasury department in 1988, when he served under former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. Summers is the director of O's National Economic Council.
Heck, I remember when that Geithner character was being skewered by Demo Sen. Chuck Schumer during hearings on the Lehman Brothers failure. Schumer seemed to think Geithner, as head of the New York Fed, should have seen it coming.
And one may remember Summers as the guy who was a proponent of deregulation during the Clinton administration.
Hillary Clinton likely will be Secretary of State and Eric Holder, deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, is the likely pick for attorney general.
Then there's his chief of staff, Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel - a quintessential Washington insider.
The economic team is full of people who were all on board when the current fiscal mess occurred. They certainly must be considered a part of the problem.
This is the kind of stuff that drives liberal bloggers insane.
And remember what O said about lobbyists during the campaign. It went something like, "There will no lobbyists or influence peddlers in an O White House."
Well, there will be plenty of lobbyists. They just can't have lobbied in their area of expertise for a year. Details, details.
And the war thing? You know - against the war, timeline for withdrawal, W policy an abysmal failure.
W's defense secretary, Robert Gates, gets to stay on.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think these are good things. I'm glad he's keeping Gates in there. I don't mind that he's filling his staff with D.C. insiders.
It's absolutely pragmatic. It makes sense.
After all, those are the people who know what's going on in Washington. Honestly, if you need somebody working for you who understands banking, are you going to hire a plumber?
No.
If you need people who can get things done in Washington, you need to hire Washington insiders - lobbyists, former administration officials, party hacks.
That's the way it works. O is smart. He knows that.
And he knew it when he was campaigning and telling us precisely the opposite - that he would eschew the politics as usual, the lobbyists and the Washington insiders.
None of this surprises me. I've seen it happen time and time again in politics, regardless of the party or the ideology.
But it certainly rubs a little bit of the shine off that whole "change" mantra.
So far, at least, it seems like the same old stuff to me.
And I'm really starting to like some of what he's saying. He's starting to sound like a conservative.[[In-content Ad]]In his press conference, he talked about how he would stimulate the economy to the tune of $800 billion or so and how budget cuts would have to be made to help pay for it.
Said O, 'We can't sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of politicians, lobbyists or interest groups.'
Now that's what I'm talking about. That's what John McCain kept saying during the campaign. Remember?
O didn't say what would be cut from the budget - his team is working on that. But budget cutting? Great idea. I love it. My sincere hope is that he really means it and follows through.
Some of my liberal friends have this whole "how dare you" attitude toward me when I question anything O does.
One of them even characterized my concerns as being "pathological." Another said since O hasn't even taken office yet, I really just need to chill out.
Well, maybe, but they need to tell that to a whole cadre of liberal bloggers and Obamaniacs who are wailing and gnashing their teeth over what they're seeing so far from their guy.
Because the stuff I like as a conservative, they can't stand as liberals.
The thrust of O's campaign was "change."
Two core promises he made over and over again were that he would dismantle the good ol' boy network in Washington and roll back the W tax cuts.
I clearly remember him vilifying the W tax policy. The absolute centerpiece of his campaign was rolling back those tax cuts to the wealthy.
You remember all the speeches - $4 billion to Exxon, hundreds of thousands to rich corporate CEOs, nothing ever trickles down to the middle class.
You also remember he was going to raise taxes on everybody who made more than $250,000 (or $200,000) and he told us repeatedly that under his plan, 95 percent of working Americans would get a tax cut.
Well, not so much these days.
O policy wonks are strongly suggesting the W tax cuts may just be allowed to run out on their own in 2011. No need to roll them back right away as suggested during the campaign.
And when a reporter asked O straight up if those tax hikes on the rich were coming, he said, "whether that's done through repeal or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on." How very non-transparent of him.
Now, from my point of view, this is a good thing. I'm glad O is being disingenuous on taxes. I think W's tax policy was working. It actually generated a record $2.7 trillion in fiscal 2007. (Spending is another story, of course.)
And raising taxes on the most productive segment of society while trying to dodge a financial crisis and convince consumers to start spending seemed dumb to me anyway.
So hey, all you rich people out there. It looks like you get to keep your money for another couple of years anyway.
I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. He's not doing what he said he would be doing but that's OK because it's driving the liberals crazy.
When I point stuff like this out to my liberal friends they say they're glad their candidate is willing to change his mind and adapt to changes in the economy. As if the economy is vastly different today than it was a month ago.
But I know - deep down - they're seething that O has now embraced the W tax policy.
And as for the good ol' boys?
So far, the Team O team is loaded with Washington insiders. These guys (and gals) certainly aren't going to need a GPS unit to find their way around the halls of power in the nation's capital.
The new treasury secretary is Timothy Geithner, current New York Federal Reserve Bank president. He first joined the treasury department in 1988, when he served under former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. Summers is the director of O's National Economic Council.
Heck, I remember when that Geithner character was being skewered by Demo Sen. Chuck Schumer during hearings on the Lehman Brothers failure. Schumer seemed to think Geithner, as head of the New York Fed, should have seen it coming.
And one may remember Summers as the guy who was a proponent of deregulation during the Clinton administration.
Hillary Clinton likely will be Secretary of State and Eric Holder, deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, is the likely pick for attorney general.
Then there's his chief of staff, Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel - a quintessential Washington insider.
The economic team is full of people who were all on board when the current fiscal mess occurred. They certainly must be considered a part of the problem.
This is the kind of stuff that drives liberal bloggers insane.
And remember what O said about lobbyists during the campaign. It went something like, "There will no lobbyists or influence peddlers in an O White House."
Well, there will be plenty of lobbyists. They just can't have lobbied in their area of expertise for a year. Details, details.
And the war thing? You know - against the war, timeline for withdrawal, W policy an abysmal failure.
W's defense secretary, Robert Gates, gets to stay on.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think these are good things. I'm glad he's keeping Gates in there. I don't mind that he's filling his staff with D.C. insiders.
It's absolutely pragmatic. It makes sense.
After all, those are the people who know what's going on in Washington. Honestly, if you need somebody working for you who understands banking, are you going to hire a plumber?
No.
If you need people who can get things done in Washington, you need to hire Washington insiders - lobbyists, former administration officials, party hacks.
That's the way it works. O is smart. He knows that.
And he knew it when he was campaigning and telling us precisely the opposite - that he would eschew the politics as usual, the lobbyists and the Washington insiders.
None of this surprises me. I've seen it happen time and time again in politics, regardless of the party or the ideology.
But it certainly rubs a little bit of the shine off that whole "change" mantra.
So far, at least, it seems like the same old stuff to me.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092