Well, if by “Asia” we actually mean Hawaii. That’s where President Obama was — Hawaii — when he delivered these remarks.
One other thing that I wanna say about this. When I meet with world leaders, what’s striking, whether it’s in Europe or here in Asia, uh….the kind of fundamental reforms and changes, uh…both on the revenue side and, the….public pension side, that other countries are having to make are so much more significant than what we need to do in order to get our books in order. This doesn’t require radical changes to America or its way of life. It just means that we spread out…the sacrifice across every…uh…across every sector. So that it’s fair. So that people don’t feel as if, once again, people who are well connected, people who have lobbyists…special interests…get off easy and the burden is placed on middle class families that are already struggling. So…if other countries can do it we can do it. We can do it in a responsible way. Uh, I’m not gonna comment on whether I veto a particular bill until I actually see a bill because I still hold out the hope that there’s gonna be a light bulb moment where everybody says “Aha! Here’s what we’ve gotta do!”
Asia is a few thousand miles west of Hawaii. I’m guessing that one reason Barry became a constitutional lawyer is because geography proved to be a bit too much for him. Is Hawaii the 56th or 57th state? How about asking the Navy corpsemen at the closest base.
That little gaffe aside, he shows in that clip that he’s still more interested in the appearance of “fairness” in the US tax code than in whether it’s actually efficient in bringing in sufficient revenues to fund the government. And his definition of “fairness” is one that’s peculiar to the left. That fact, that Obama’s emphasis is on “fairness” as defined by the left, meaning punitive tax rates on the rich to pay for ever expanding social programs that increase dependency on government, came out in the 2008 debates but the media never pushed him to define what he meant beyond that debate. But it’s key to understanding what makes Obama tick and why he pursues the policies that he pursues. His universe isn’t organize around what works or even what’s objectively right, but about what his politics tells him is “fair.” Spread the wealth around.
The part about people who are well connected getting away with more than the rest of us applies to Obama’s administration and the top Democrats in Congress probably more than any previous administration, but obviously not according to Obama’s world view. Why did George Kaiser, billionaire, get to blow nearly half a billion taxpayer dollars on Solyndra? By all appearances, because he is a major Obama funder and via his lefty foundation and political donations is doing the “right” thing as defined by the left. Why did Nancy Pelosi get a sweet and unusual IPO offering from Visa in 2008? By all appearances, because she was Speaker of the House at the time and Visa was interested in scuttling credit card regulations that were working their way through the House. They’re well connected, and really didn’t need the money, especially in Kaiser’s case. In Pelosi’s case, the evident corruption doesn’t matter, because she says the “right” things and her intentions, as defined by the left, are noble.