Harry Reid Loves Stealing

From Powerline (via Instapundit):

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.

“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Yes, the private sector is doing just great. That’s why unemployment is over 9%, with “real” unemployment more like 20%. And, as I noted on Monday, government spending has done nothing but increase at all levels, even as many companies are cutting back.

Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to “put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that’s our priority.” He said Republicans are calling the bill a “failure” because they are “using a different benchmark for success than we are.”

And who is going to pay for all of those government jobs? The private sector, to liberals like Reid, is nothing but a fatted calf, or–to switch animals–a golden goose that will never stop laying eggs. They really believe that the people exist to serve the government, rather than the other way around.

I wonder if these government jobs include bureaucrats (i.e. government employees the populace is less likely to support than teachers and first responders).  So, Harry Reid wants to focus on public sector jobs?  The jobs with overinflated taxpayer-funded salaries and benefits, and the ones represented by powerful unions who constantly demand more?  Harry Reid evidently believes that the private sector is strong, the government should focus on strengthening the public sector.  But wouldn't that, in turn, indirectly weaken the private sector?  I'm willing to bet that that is exactly what Reid wants, given how the private sector is evil, or something.

"For the Good of Mankind"

After watching coverage of the "Occupy Vancouver" protest on CBC, I am disappointed.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a more one-sided news story here in Canada.  There was not a single criticism of the movement (unless lack of focus on a specific goal is one), and every person they interviewed was either at the protest or said they wanted to go, because they supported the movement.  There wasn't a hint of controversy in the story about the radical leftist politics of the movement.  But, any mere mention of the tea party here seems to be enough to incite accusations of right-wing extremism.

The main message of the "Occupy Whatever" movement seems to be that 1% of the population (what population, I'm not sure) controlls about 40% of the wealth.  So, their solution to this "problem" is to take wealth from that 1% and redistribute it to the remaining 99%.  I don't view this disparity as a problem.  If you want wealth, capitalism allows you to get it if you put in enough effort.  That is, as long as the government gets out of the way sufficiently.  So, whatever these people are demanding, doing the opposite would likely benefit them more (as long as they were willing to put in some effort).

According to the protesters, they are good people fighting evil corporations, and they're doing it "for the good of mankind."  And, after watching another biased news story on "Occupy Vancouver" on Global News, I am glad they at least mentioned an opponent to the movement, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.  According to them, the "[BC Government Employees' Union (BCGEU)] needs to 'occupy' common sense":

• Main beneficiaries of current political system are public sector unions

• BCGEU owns major equity in large, profitable multi-national corporations

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) responded today to an e-mail sent to BCGEU members across the province on Thursday encouraging them to “come out and support Occupy Vancouver.” 

The note from BCGEU president Daryl Walker says that “Union members belong to the 99 percent who are not benefiting from the current political and economic system. That message needs to be seen and heard.” 

“Walker is dead wrong,” said Jordan Bateman, CTF BC Director. “Public sector unions are provided for very generously by taxpayers, thank-you very much, and insulated from the economic uncertainties felt by those working outside the public sector. If there’s any group benefitting from the current political system, it’s public sector unions.” 

According to number released earlier this year by Statistics Canada, the average Canadian public service employee earned $1,023.20 a week in July 2011. Meanwhile, everybody else earned an average of $777.69. More than 86% of government workers have a workplace pension plan, compared to just 25.3% of private sector workers.  

“If 99% of the population is not benefitting from the current political and economic system it’s because nearly half their incomes are taken in taxes,” said Bateman. “Those taxes are largely driven by the demands of public sector unions—they want to cut everybody else’s pay to increase their own. As the president of the BC Teachers Federation said recently, teachers want BC’s income tax cuts reversed so they can increase their own pay and benefits by $2.2 billion.”  

Further, the BCGEU is a huge investor in the very corporations Mr. Walker whinges about. Three of the companies skewered in Occupy Vancouver promotional material are Royal Bank, TD Bank and ScotiaBank.  But through their pension plan, BCGEU’s members own more than $439.7 million worth of equity in those three banks alone. 

“The union foxes are hiding in the Occupy Vancouver hen house,” said Bateman. “Unions like the BCGEU invest in some of the largest corporations in the world—the very companies Occupy Vancouver so passionately disparages.”

If you ask me, these people should not be protesting corporate greed, but rather public union and government greed.  Those are the real forces behind economic inequality.

But They're Obviously Racist

Most business economists favor spending cuts over tax increases (h/t Instapundit).  This is not a surprise to me, but it may inspire a few ad hominems from leftists (seeing as how that seems to be their preferred method of "debate").

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts. 

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases. 

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending. 

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling. 

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

I Love Sweden

About seven days, two hours, and forty minutes ago, I wrote a post about Norway.  Entitled "What is Wrong With Norway?," I quoted a description of Norway's economic model, called the Nordic Model, from Wikipedia:

This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilizing the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

When I wrote that post, I said this:

I must say that I am disappointed in some of the information I am learning, as I have always been quite fond of Scandinavia...

Since then, I have learned a bit more about Scandinavia (and other Nordic nations).  And this time, I am not disappointed in the least.  Watch the following video.  Not only does it explain my new-found love for Sweden, but it also explains the benefit of a free-market economy. 

(h/t to GayPatriot reader ILoveCapitalism)

That video contains the URL of a CATO Institute policy analysis.  How can you not love a country whose economic model is praised (loosely speaking) by the CATO Institute?

Notwithstanding problems associated with a large welfare state, there is much to applaud in Nordic nations. They have open markets, low levels of regulation, strong property rights, stable currencies, and many other policies associated with growth and prosperity. Indeed, Nordic nations generally rank among the world's most market-oriented nations. 

Nordic nations also have implemented some pro-market reforms. Every Nordic nation has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States, for example, and most of them have low-rate flat tax systems for capital income. Iceland even has a flat tax for labor income. And both Iceland and Sweden have partially privatized their social security retirement systems. 

The Nordic nations offer valuable lessons for policymakers, but they do not fit the traditional stereotype. Conservative critics correctly condemn the large welfare states, but often overlook the positive results generated by laissez-faire policies in other areas. Liberals, meanwhile, exaggerate the economic performance of Nordic nations in an effort to justify welfare-state policies, while failing to acknowledge the role of free market policies in other areas.

Here is a link to the CATO Institute's policy analysis.  What follows are some excerpts from that analysis:

Before drawing conclusions about the desirability of the Nordic model, however, it is important to answer three relevant questions: 

1. Why are Nordic nations relatively rich?
2. Has the welfare state has helped or hindered these countries’ economic performance?
3. Does the Nordic Model create more prosperity than the (relatively speaking) limited-government model in the United States?

The answer to all of those questions is that Nordic nations are reasonably successful in spite of the welfare state. Nordic countries benefit from institutions—such as property rights, stable currencies, and the rule of law—that facilitate economic growth. And although they have large welfare states and concomitantly high levels of taxation, their economic systems in other respects are very market-oriented. Combined with the fact that before the mid-1960s the burden of government in Nordic nations was modest, these factors help explain why those countries today are relatively prosperous.

 ...

The two main ways of comparing economic performance are rate of growth and level of output. One measures how fast gross domestic product (or some similar measure of economic output) is expanding. The other compares the absolute level of economic output (or some similar measure of prosperity). By both measures, the Nordic nations generally do not fare well when compared to the United States. ... According to the OECD, the U.S. grew by an average of 3 percent between 1981 and 1991and 3.3 percent between 1992 and 2006 (mean-ing average growth of 3.2 percent for 1981 to2006). The Nordic nations, by contrast, grew by an average of 2.2 percent between 1981 and 1991 and 2.7 percent from 1992 to 2006 (meaning average growth of 2.5 percent over the entire period). The IMF, meanwhile,reports that U.S. growth averaged 3.1 percentfrom 1981–2006 compared to an average of 2.6percent for Nordic nations in the same period.

... 

...the tax burden in Nordic nations and America was remarkably similar until 1960. Not coincidentally, it was during this pre-1960 era that Nordic nations grew rapidly and became rich.  

Beginning in the mid-1960s, and accelerating through the 1970s and into the 1980s, however, the Nordic nations created large welfare states. Indeed, this is the key difference between America and the Nordic nations. The United States has a medium-sized welfare state and the Nordic nations have large welfare states. Otherwise, America and the Nordic nations have many features in common. Both the Nordic nations and America have sound institutions, including stable currencies, rule of law, and property rights. Both the Nordic nations and America have relatively open markets. Indeed, if the “size of government” factor is removed from the Economic Freedom of the World indicators, Nordic nations score an average of 8.35, ranking above the 8.25 score for the United States.

...

The Nordic nations also have excellent reputations for honest government. According to Transparency International, the five Nordic nations rank among the eight least corrupt nations in the world, with Finland and Iceland tied for first place. The United States also does well, with a ranking of 20 out of 163 nations, but the higher scores for the squeaky-clean Nordic nations presumably help offset the larger burden of government.

The Nordic nations also deserve attention for important reforms. Iceland, for instance, has a flat tax (albeit with a 36 percent rate), personal retirement accounts, and quasi-privatized fisheries. Sweden, meanwhile, has an extensive school choice system and personal retirement accounts.

... 

Before the 1960s, Nordic nations had modest levels of taxation and spending. They also enjoyed—and still enjoy—laissez-faire policies and open markets in other areas. These are the policies that enabled Nordic nations to prosper for much of the 20th century. Once their countries became rich, politicians in Nordic nations focused on how to redistribute the wealth that was generated by private-sector activity. This sequence is important. Nordic nations became rich, and then government expanded. This expansion of government has slowed growth, but slow growth for a rich nation is much less of a burden than slow growth in a poor nation.

What I take from this is that the Nordic nations can learn from the United States.  Based on that video, it seems Sweden is slowly returning to its pre-1960 model.  Because I have ancestors from Sweden, I feel a closeness to it.  This is very welcome information indeed.  

It is important to note that that CATO Institute analysis is from 2007, before the worldwide economic crisis.  The Nordic nation of Iceland has since undergone a major financial crisis, and so any reference to Iceland may not be reliable.  I think an analysis of Iceland's current economic situation is required to ascertain exactly how Iceland fits into all of this.  To my knowledge, the other Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) were relatively unaffected by that worldwide crisis.

Does Obama Know What Fair Means?

President Obama has frequently demanded "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share."  However, I do not believe Obama knows the definition of the word "fair."  According to the Free Dictionary, "fair" means:

a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.

b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

So, if Obama really wanted "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share," he would propose a flat income tax or a sales-based tax.  Also, taxes aren't really fair in the first place.  Essentially, when the government collects taxes, it is stealing the hard-earned money of hard-working people.  Isn't that also kind of what labour unions do?  

British Columbia Politics is Getting More Interesting

The British Columbia Conservative Party is a minor party with zero seats.  If voters in BC want to vote for a party that might actually win the election, they must choose between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party (NDP).  The Liberal Party is not affiliated with the national Liberal Party, and they are considered farther-right.  They are the major centre-right party in BC, although they are probably around the centre.  The NDP is a social democratic party (i.e. centre-left).  Many people in BC are fed up with the Liberal Party, but the NDP is also unappealing to many people.  I hope that the Conservative Party manages to gain traction in the coming years, although I may not be able to vote for them (as I may not live in BC).  In Canada's federal elections of 2011 and 2006, BC gave the 4th highest percentage of its votes to the Conservative Party (after Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, in that order; the territory of Nunavut also gave a higher percentage of its votes to the Conservatives).  The coast of BC, where most of the population lives, is generally more liberal, while the interior is more conservative.  There are also some conservative areas on or near the coast, such as the Fraser Valley (for example, Abbotsford and Chilliwack), some suburbs of Vancouver (for example, Richmond, Delta, Langley, White Rock, North Vancouver and Maple Ridge), and some areas of Vancouver Island (for example, Parksville); and there are some liberal areas in the interior (such as the hippie haven of Nelson).  

It is evident that British Columbians would like an alternative party to vote for, and the BC Conservatives appear to have an opportunity to grow.  In fact, a recent poll shows that the Conservatives' support is at 18 percent, compared to the 2 percent of the popular vote they received in the most recent provincial election (2009).  In may, the party elected John Cummins as its leader, and his ideas are allowing him to gain support.
 
A proposed rapid transit line in the Vancouver suburbs of Burnaby, Coquitlam, and Port Moody, called the Evergreen Line, is at the heart of an issue for which John Cummins has received recent media attention.  An increase in the gas tax has been proposed as the method by which to pay for this tranist line.  However, Cummins is saying that the line can be payed for by municipalities, which could make butget cuts to pay for the line.

That Mustel poll was taken in May. It showed the Liberals on top with 37 per cent support, the NDP right behind with 35 per cent, and the B.C. Conservatives in third with 18 per cent. 

That's an 11-point jump for the Conservatives since December. Who knows how high Tory support could grow, as gas-tax grumpiness grows? 

"It's not just the Lower Mainland," said Cummins. " People are fed up with high taxes everywhere. They know they're being pinched. No one has been standing up for them." 

He said the party's membership is growing. Donations are increasing. The plan to run candidates in every riding is on pace. 

And the Liberals are sweating, because they know Cummins could split the right-wing vote, and allow the New Democrats to sneak back into power.

Who knows how high Conservative Party support will grow?  I am optimistic that their policies will be popular with British Columbians, and their popularity will grow as more people believe that they might be able to win some seats.  Both current major BC parties support the gas tax.  

Cut, Cap and Balance

Conservatives in the house have proposed a plan called “Cut, Cap and Balance” that would consist of “substantial spending cuts, ...a statutory spending cap, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.” 

Senators McConnell (R-KY) and Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have proposed a plan that the conservatives who have proposed the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” have deemed the “Cut, Run, and Hide Plan.”

This plan consists of a debt ceiling increase of $2.5 trillion “without any guaranteed spending cuts or reforms.” 

According to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the real problem isn’t the debt ceiling, it is the debt.  If the disaster is to be averted, then whatever plan is adopted must have a realistic, long-term solution to the debt problem. 

In my opinion, the only real solution would be harsh budget cuts.  Because of President Obama, the US has immense debt and the best solution would be to cut spending harshly, which would stimulate the economy, which would provide government revenue.  

Marco Rubio's Wisdom

On CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this on the debt problem:

Well, certainly the debt limit is an issue but I think the bigger issue here is the debt and I think what troubles me, Bob, is that no one is focusing on the real problem here. The real-- the real problem here is not the debt limit, the real problem here is the debt and a lack of a credible plan to deal with the debt. And it’s not me saying, it is the rating houses are saying it. If you read the S&P report, they made it very clear that simply raising the debt limit is not enough it needs to be accompanied by some serious effort to credibly deal with the American’s debt problem. And if that is not what we do we’re going to have a big problem, perhaps bigger than anything the administration has been talking about.  

...I think everybody in Washington would like to see more revenues. The question is number one how do you get more revenues? And number two, what do you do with it? I think more revenue should come from economic growth. And I think it should come from that because I think it’s impossible for it to come from tax increases. None of the tax increases the President is proposing solves the problem. They don’t raise enough money. In fact, they make it worse. They kill jobs. And by the way, I don’t trust Washington, because they have shown time and again that any time they get their hands on more money, they don’t use it to pay or avoid debt, they use it to grow the government. So, that’s what I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of-- of more revenue that comes from economic growth, the creation of new jobs. And if you talk to job creators, not politicians, not presidents, you talk to job creators, they will tell you that what they are looking for is a fair and simpler tax code, so I do support tax reform and I think there is a lot of support for tax reform in Washington. And they are looking for some regulatory reform as well because they think these regulations that are being imposed make America a more unfriendly place to do business.

And this on entitlements:

I come from a state that has a massive number of retirees and I’ve stood before cameras like this and made it very clear that if we don’t do something to save Medicare and Social Security they will bankrupt themselves and bankrupt our country. That those-- those programs are unsustainable as they are currently structured, that we are going to lose those programs unless we do something to deal with it. I did that during the campaign and everybody told me I’d lost my mind in terms of talking about these issues. So I think as far as I am concerned and many like me, we have stepped up and talked about some of these issues that face America. I mean, senator, I’m sorry, Representative Ryan, Congressman Ryan has played a terrible political price early on this year for even offering a potential solution to some of these problems. 

...we don’t have to do anything for current beneficiaries, people like my mom or people near retirement. I do think we have to look at the retirement age. I do pe-- do think that people like me, I’m forty, just turn forty a month ago, people like me have to accept the fact that there will not be a Social Security for us, unless we are willing to retire a little bit later. That’s-- that’s-- and people in my generation are going to have to accept that. And I am open to other people’s suggestions. Absolutely, I’m open to people’s suggestions, because I want to save Social Security and I want to save Medicare. As far as our solutions are concerned to the overall problem I think a credible solution to our debt problem has to have two components. It has to have budgetary reforms, in essence a de-- decrease in spending, of at least four trillion dollars or more and it has to come with some sort of growth enhancers, something that helps grow our economy. You cannot get yourself out of this debt problem at nine percent unemployment with over twenty-four million Americans either unemployed or underemployed.

Some Commentary on Obama's Leadership

President Obama has always been confusing to me.  It seems as if he is expecting the Republican-controlled house to to his job for him.  In the first post I wrote for this blog, I said this:

Obama talked about his leadership concerning people that have said that his leadership has been insufficient.  He said that he has had leadership.  He then said, “At a certain point, congress members need to do their job.”  He said he is doing all the work and that congress is not doing anything.  He said they are not making tough choices and not leading.  He said that he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden, and Greece, and that congress needs to lead on the domestic front.  This sentiment of his is important, because this part effectively summarizes his entire presidency.  He has relied on others to lead, while he takes credit for the success of others, again reminding America that he was in charge during the death of Osama bin Laden.  He heavily criticized congress for not leading with regards to the economy, while they, unlike Democrats, have put forward a budget. 

The reason Obama confuses me so much is that he says he is a leader but he is always saying that Republicans have the responsibility to lead when it comes to the budget and debt.

Regarding the debt ceiling debate, Obama has repeated ad nauseam his desire for a balanced approach, one that involves both spending cuts and tax increases, and one that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama has not offered specific details on his plan.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this:

OK, so where’s the plan? Where’s the president’s plan? I’ve never seen a piece of paper with the president’s name on it that’s his plan to solve this crisis. I’ve seen press conferences. I’ve seen lectures that he’s given to the Congress. I’ve seen these press avails where the camera comes in and takes a bunch of pictures. I haven’t seen a plan. Where is the president’s plan?

B. Daniel Blatt adds this:

Oh, and remember that 36-hour deadline the president was giving House Republicans to come up with a plan, a deadline which they wisely did not meet? Why did the president not come up with his own plan in that timeframe?

He was asking Republicans to do something that he himself refused to do. Guess that’s what you call leading from behind?

A Thought on Taxes

If you use the justification that businesses are making good profits to raise taxes on businesses, what will they cut from their budget to pay for the new taxes?  Since the purpose of a business is to make profit, I would guess that the business would cut from the budget whatever would have the lowest impact on their profit.  I highly doubt that they would take that money that they need to pay for the new tax directly out of the profit.  And I highly doubt that that business's executives would cut their own salaries. They might lay off some employees instead.  Who knows, I do not have experience in business, so I could be way off.  However, it goes against my reasoning that any taxes on business would be a good idea.

Debt Talks Stalled

House speaker John Boehner walked out on talks to reduce the US debt and prevent the US from defaulting.  It appears that the Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling (so they can spend more money, presumably) and raise taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit, while the Republicans want to cut the budget:

The Treasury Department has warned that failure to do so by August 2 could lead to a possible default, which could push interest rates to skyrocket and cause the dollar to plummet. But Republicans, including those controlling the House, have insisted on large-scale budget cuts before raising the ceiling.

Both parties have thus far been unable to reconcile their radically divergent strategies to solve the nation's economic crisis, as Republicans refuse to raise taxes in a weak economy and Democrats denounce proposed cuts to entitlement programs as draconian and unacceptable.

The Democrats want to continue using their Keynesian approach, which so far, has worked out very well.  Or, at least, according to “experts,” has shown unexpectedly poor results.  So, if the poor results were unexpected, then it means that good results were expected, so it follows that the best approach would be to continue using the same approach that failed in the past (what is that called again? Insanity?).  The Republicans want to do something, that according to basic economics, might actually solve the debt crisis and stimulate the economy at the same time.  But, of course, doing so would entail performing unspeakable, evil acts such as pushing grandma off a cliff and not stealing so much money from people who actually deserve it.  How evil and “draconian.”  I mean, they use draconian as if it were a bad thing.  If they weren’t so blinded by their compassion they might actually realize that most people who deserve it would actually benefit from entitlement cuts because of the aforementioned economic stimulation that budget cuts would provide.  People might actually be able to find a job so they would not need to rely on the government to babysit them.

However, it does seem that maybe President Obama is not completely insane:

President Barack Obama had signaled a willingness to include reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare as part of a broad agreement for $3 trillion to $4 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, said Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.

I will reserve judgement until the president actually acts.

But Boehner's announcement Saturday appears to diminish the chances for such a sweeping deal, although he kept open the door for some sort of less grand agreement.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the group, spearheaded by Biden, has identified "between $2 trillion and $2.5 trillion in spending cuts that could represent the framework of the agreement." But he said that any tax hike cannot, and will not, be part of any deal."A tax increase cannot pass the House, and it is the last thing Congress should be doing with so many people out of work," said Brad Dayspring, the Virginia Republican's spokesman.A House GOP leadership aide said earlier this week that both Cantor and the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Kyl, voiced reservations at a White House meeting Thursday about the prospects for getting a $4 trillion package if it included $1 trillion in new tax revenues. Republicans were hesitant, the aide notes, to agree on any proposals that go much farther than simply closing loopholes.

The republicans should be resolute during these negotiations, given that they seem to have some grasp on reality.  And, if the United States does default, perhaps that would be an opportunity to get things over with so prosperity may resume sooner, rather than later.

While he didn't specify what tax hikes, if any, the president had proposed, Pfeiffer said it was important to spread the burden of any deal."We cannot ask the middle class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts," he said. "We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree."

Yes, because the evil rich people (some of whom actually earned their money) are always the ones responsible for destroying the country.  If the Democrats really wanted to be fair, they would end the redistribution of money and enact a flat tax across all income brackets or a sales-based tax.  Oh, and since when do budget cuts cost money?  I would think that they would actually save money.  I mean, that is the whole point of cutting the budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, said he was "disappointed that Republicans are unable to work with us to take a dramatic step forward that would have dramatically reduced our deficit."

"We asked Republicans to consider a balanced approach that would have required shared sacrifice, but they would not," said Reid, D-Nevada. "We still need to make sure we avert the economic catastrophe that would occur if we were to let America fail to pay its bills for the first time in our history, and I am confident that we will."

Harry Reid is always reliable to offer some sort of twisted logic.  They want to raise taxes to close the deficit, while increasing the debt ceiling?  And they are disappointed in Republicans, whose proposal is much more viable?  And Reid wants the shift the burden from the people who are living off the government to the people who are actually suffering?  Am I not understanding this properly?

President Obama's Press Conference, 06/29/11

I watched President Obama’s press conference on CNN.  While I was watching it, I noticed some things on which I wanted to comment.  The press conference covered numerous topics, such as the budget, the economy, Libya, and gay marriage.  I was watching the press conference while taking notes, so I am relying solely upon my notes and my memory in writing this.  I apologize if I got something wrong or if I left out anything pertinent.

The Budget and the Economy

Obama impugned Republicans for not doing anything about the economy.  Overall, I found Obama’s analysis of the economic situation to be simplistic in that he appeared to equate cutting entitlement spending to eliminating scholarships for students, cutting funding for critical research, and asking seniors to pay more for Medicare and social security (he used these things as examples of what would happen).  He mentioned having a balanced approach, and he stressed the need for Republicans and Democrats to compromise.  He laid out on what, specifically, he was willing to compromise.  In short, his plan is to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires,” oil companies, and people with private jets; cut defense spending; increase spending on infrastructure to create jobs; finance small businesses; reduce the debt and the deficit; and reform the tax code.  Overall, Obama stressed the importance of debt and deficit reduction as well as job creation.  Of course, Republicans have laid out a plan.  From what I can tell, these plans seem to be at odds.  It does not seem as though Obama would be willing to compromise further or address Paul Ryan’s common-sense plan to cut spending on entitlements.  My opinion is that the main priorities of the federal government of the United States should be to do what it was meant to do and not cater to the failings of its citizens.   

There is one thing Obama said that I think is important to mention.  I apologize if the quote is incorrect, but it is approximately correct.  He said, “Keep in mind, businesses always complain about regulation” and “businesses will always complain about regulation because they want to be able to do whatever they can to maximize profits” and “it is my responsibility to uphold good regulations that protect the environment and safety” and “lets get rid of regulations that don’t make sense.”  Obama speaks of profits as though they are a bad thing.  Of course businesses are going to do whatever they can to maximize profits.  And if they cannot do that in the US, they will do it somewhere else.  Profit, after all, is the point of having a business.  Again, Obama’s understanding of the economic situation is simplistic.  

Then, he talked about Boeing in South Carolina.  He said that companies should have the freedom to relocate (within the US, I presume), as long as the law is followed, and that companies should be encouraged to create jobs in the United States to maintain competition with other countries.  I agree with his general statement, but I would say that this encouragement should consist of business-friendly regulations that make companies feel as though they (specifically, their profits) would benefit from creating jobs in the country in question.  

Later in the press conference, he started talking about the debt ceiling.  He said that it needs to be raised (before the deadline when the US will reach its borrowing limit, August 2nd) to avoid more problems.  What he said was approximately “August is a hard deadline.  This is a jobs issue.  If the US government cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, the consequence for the economy will be unpredictable.  If the US government does not pay its bills, if the US has to raise interest rates to pay its bills, more people will have to pay higher interest rates which will increase economic worries.”  He then faulted Republicans for “picking and choosing” which bills to pay. 

Now, here is my favorite part.  Obama talked about his leadership concerning people that have said that his leadership has been insufficient.  He said that he has had leadership.  He then said, “At a certain point, congress members need to do their job.”  He said he is doing all the work and that congress is not doing anything.  He said they are not making tough choices and not leading.  He said that he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden, and Greece, and that congress needs to lead on the domestic front.  This sentiment of his is important, because this part effectively summarizes his entire presidency.  He has relied on others to lead, while he takes credit for the success of others, again reminding America that he was in charge during the death of Osama bin Laden.  He heavily criticized congress for not leading with regards to the economy, while they, unlike Democrats, have put forward a budget.  The remainder of the portion of his press conference consisted primarily of rhetoric along the lines of “we need to put aside politics to get things done” and “these are solvable problems but it requires us to get out of the short term and selfish approach that politics breeds, we need to think about it long term.”    

Libya

Obama defined the goal of the mission in Libya as protecting the Libyan people, which he said would ultimately necessitate removing Muammar Gaddafi from power.  He made clear that Gaddafi needs to go.  My question is, what about Syria?  Isn’t the situation in Syria worse than that in Libya?  If it is, and if the situation in Libya warrants military action, shouldn’t the situation in Syria also warrant military action?  The people of Syria are being slaughtered under an oppressive regime.  So, the US military (and NATO) should either commit to both Libya and Syria (if the reason for intervening in Libya is to protect the Libyan people, as the president says), just Syria (if Syrians are, in fact, in more danger than Libyans, which it seems as though they are), or neither.  

Gay Marriage

Obama applauded New York for its decision in legalizing gay marriage.  He said DOMA was unconstitutional and that the decision on whether or not to legalize gay marriage should be left up to the states.  I agree with this.  However, he also praised the courts and court decisions granting gay marriage as being “how the system should work.”  With this, I disagree.  Gay marriage should only be legal if the majority of the population agrees that it should or if the majority of democratically elected representatives of the population agree that it should.  He also mentioned how “gays, lesbians, and transgender” (he apparently ignored or forgot about bisexuals) should not be discriminated against (presumably by the government).  However, he also refused to state whether or not he personally supports gay marriage.  I agree that, as long as he is not pursuing an agenda, that his personal view of gay marriage is irrelevant.  He mentioned that he has accomplished more concerning gay rights during his presidency than all other presidents have. 

In conclusion, l found that what Obama said during this press conference was specious.  I agreed with some things he said (for example, he mentioned that he would like to reform the tax code to make it more efficient), but actions are needed to back up his statements. 


UPDATE: I forgot to mention  the "stimulus."  Obama spent hundreds of billions of dollars getting into this mess.  Now he is expecting Republicans to get out of it.  


UPDATE: I missed a quote from Obama's press conference that has appeared in a few places. It is along the lines of "Republicans need to ask their constituents if they are willing to sacrifice their children's safety for a tax break for corporate jet owners."  This demonstrates Obama's specious reasoning and the overall absurdity of this conference.