Idiotic Liberal is Dead and Dangerously Wrong
Now I know what you're thinking: any other day, and this wouldn't have even warranted a byline, much less a headline, in any respectable information source. Nothing in the headline is really that unusual, or that surprising. However, when it's couched as sound analysis, and in the context of how to advise the president, it seems kinda like one's duty to point out how monumentally idiotic this particular liberal is, and how people in power can drive nations to financial ruin by listening to bad and dangerous advice.
Robert Reich, aka public enemy #1 for the day, lays out the current situation basically correctly, before moving out to lay out two different government approaches. In the first, he explains the typical Keysian/liberal economic approach: borrow/print more money, bail out the irresponsible states with new federal borrowing, make taxation more unfair, and waste another $300 Billion or so on corruption and insider payouts, all while doing nothing to address the long-term problems. The second is more pragmatic, and much less active: cut spending a little bit, emphasize the debt commission, and tell the American people we need to spend less to restore our national solvency. He then goes on to assert that if you shouldn't be advising the president unless you'd pick the first option.
... it's almost too stupid to even comment on, but I'll go a step further, and suggest that there should be a third option for consideration. In this option, you would advise the president that the only way to salvage what's left of his reputation for integrity and "cleaning up" Washington would be to man up and admit what most people have already figured out: we can't just keep printing money and bailing out everyone and stay fiscally solvent as a nation. Tell him he needs to refuse another corrupt handout program labeled as a "stimulus" or "jobs bill", and pressure Congress to instead fix the real long-term issue, which is how to create and preserve private sector jobs. While he's at it, some acknowledgment of the growing disparity in total compensation between the public and private sector (public is now roughly double private for comparable jobs, including benefits) would be nice, in addition to a pledge and some tangible actions to cap public compensation at equal or less than private compensation. Tell him it's time to pick between continuing to pursue the ruinous liberal agenda (ie: Cap and Tax, public health care expansion, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.), or fulfilling his seemingly empty and disingenuous promises of steering the country in the right direction; that his legacy should be more about having the courage to address the real issues, rather than acting as the figurehead for the liberal-socialist agenda. And while you're at it, remind him that public interference in private markets is generally bad, no matter how good intentions may (or may not) be, and he's do well to apply that thinking to various industries which have been grievously damaged on his watch, if not by his own hand (eg: housing, auto, medical, energy, insurance, financial, etc.).
Not that I think any amount of good advice would actually help: I think Obama charts his own course, and is doing what he wants to do for his own reasons, regardless of how reasonable or mind-bogglingly malignant the advice he's receiving may be. However, it's an insult to every thinking American to state or imply that the only advice the president should be receiving is to lead the country headlong into financial ruin, full speed ahead, with eyes wide open, and damn the consequences. It's despicable and contemptible.
Robert Reich, aka public enemy #1 for the day, lays out the current situation basically correctly, before moving out to lay out two different government approaches. In the first, he explains the typical Keysian/liberal economic approach: borrow/print more money, bail out the irresponsible states with new federal borrowing, make taxation more unfair, and waste another $300 Billion or so on corruption and insider payouts, all while doing nothing to address the long-term problems. The second is more pragmatic, and much less active: cut spending a little bit, emphasize the debt commission, and tell the American people we need to spend less to restore our national solvency. He then goes on to assert that if you shouldn't be advising the president unless you'd pick the first option.
... it's almost too stupid to even comment on, but I'll go a step further, and suggest that there should be a third option for consideration. In this option, you would advise the president that the only way to salvage what's left of his reputation for integrity and "cleaning up" Washington would be to man up and admit what most people have already figured out: we can't just keep printing money and bailing out everyone and stay fiscally solvent as a nation. Tell him he needs to refuse another corrupt handout program labeled as a "stimulus" or "jobs bill", and pressure Congress to instead fix the real long-term issue, which is how to create and preserve private sector jobs. While he's at it, some acknowledgment of the growing disparity in total compensation between the public and private sector (public is now roughly double private for comparable jobs, including benefits) would be nice, in addition to a pledge and some tangible actions to cap public compensation at equal or less than private compensation. Tell him it's time to pick between continuing to pursue the ruinous liberal agenda (ie: Cap and Tax, public health care expansion, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.), or fulfilling his seemingly empty and disingenuous promises of steering the country in the right direction; that his legacy should be more about having the courage to address the real issues, rather than acting as the figurehead for the liberal-socialist agenda. And while you're at it, remind him that public interference in private markets is generally bad, no matter how good intentions may (or may not) be, and he's do well to apply that thinking to various industries which have been grievously damaged on his watch, if not by his own hand (eg: housing, auto, medical, energy, insurance, financial, etc.).
Not that I think any amount of good advice would actually help: I think Obama charts his own course, and is doing what he wants to do for his own reasons, regardless of how reasonable or mind-bogglingly malignant the advice he's receiving may be. However, it's an insult to every thinking American to state or imply that the only advice the president should be receiving is to lead the country headlong into financial ruin, full speed ahead, with eyes wide open, and damn the consequences. It's despicable and contemptible.
Comments
Post a Comment