$1,000,000,000,000 Deficits as Far as the Eye Can See
This is unpossible! We raised taxes on the rich! And yet:
The CBO in its January 4 press statement (The “Fiscal Cliff” Deal) declared that Congress’s January 1 agreement will “produce (ten year) deficits that are smaller— but only by $0.7 trillion to $0.8 trillion.” Thus we face annual deficits of $920 to $930 billion even, in the unlikely case, that sequestered spending cuts go into effect and Obama Care’s costs come in on target. Continuing as is means trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
That’s Paul Roderick Gregory, writing for Forbes — which I rarely read anymore because so much of it is the worst sort of link-bait. But he goes on:
As we barrel down the road to fiscal ruin, Obama shows no interest in reforming the entitlements that are driving the crisis. He demagogues those who propose to control discretionary outlays, and he diverts blame to others: “Everything would be fine if the rich pay their fair share,” he repeats, while knowing the U.S. taxes its rich more heavily than any other country.
Obama’s indifference to the looming debt catastrophe could have two explanations (We rule out that Obama cannot do arithmetic. He claims he “can do the math.”)
First, “Politician Obama” understands the magnitude of the crisis, would like to do something about it, but is unwilling to come clean for purely political reasons.
Second, “Ideologue Obama” wishes an unaffordable European entitlement state as his legacy. We will have to pay for it with new taxes at a future date. Americans would reject this outcome now, but maybe not after they are hooked on universal entitlements.
There are two other possibilities, actually. One is that Obama simply doesn’t care. He’s a progressive Democrat, and will drive the gravy train full throttle, and hope he isn’t still at the controls when it inevitably derails. Honestly, I think he’s if he prays at all, it’s for a Republican to succeed him after 2016. Just like Bill Clinton’s Community Reinvestment Act was the time bomb which proved the final undoing of George Bush, Obama’s deficits could prove the final undoing of the entire GOP.
(That the GOP is happily helping him along is a discussion for another day.)
And the final possibility, discussed here and elsewhere many times before, is that Obama is a Marxian dedicated to the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
So we have four choices. Which is it? I dunno. I spent quite a few words trying to unravel this “Second American Sphinx” back in May, and came to the conclusion that it’s impossible to come to a conclusion regarding the motives of the 43rd President of the United States.
That’s a very strange thing to have to write.
Figuring out his motives is a fool’s errand, figuring out how to stop him is the priority.
Actually, knowing for sure his precise motivation would be of enormous value.
There’s some reason to believe it’s option #1, as indicated by his apparent initial willingness to discuss closing tax loopholes while reducing rates, or at least to discuss lowering the corporate rate, during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations. If option #1 is the right one, then he may be willing to deal.
If it’s option #2 or #3 (which are indistinguishable to me), then increase rates or whatever else is required in the short term to avoid a VAT which would hollow out the productive economy while prolonging the entitlement state just long enough to turn us into France. Develop a media strategy to place the blame for economic bad news directly on the policies of the Democrat party.
If it’s option #4, well, that’s a whole other ball of wax.
I figure his goal is to create a sufficiently large fiscal crisis to implement a VAT or a Carbon Tax.
The R’s are not thinking ahead, and they’re getting their butts kicked at both the tactical and strategic levels.
I suspect he wakes up in the morning and rolls a four sided die to pick which possibility is going to inform him for that day.
Gregory’s numbers are wrong.
1 trillion – 0.7 trillion = 0.3 trillion. Quite a substantial reduction indeed.
1 trillion – 0.07 trillion would = 930 billion.
I suspect he’s right on the result, but dropped the zero.
Steve: You mean 44th President, I expect.
Denise: Those are 10-year numbers he’s quoting – $700B over 10 years is $70B/year.
I choose option #5. Despite his impressive resume and the relentless fawning of the media, Obama has always struck me as a thoroughly pedestrian intellect. He is Chauncey Gardner. His “leadership” is what it is because he cut his political teeth around option #4 radicals, who have put him out there as their front man, the only role he’s ever filled well.
We may do no better than to ride out the clock on the Obama presidency, but if we want to rein him in, the way to do it is to go after his posse. Isolate him from the Chicago gang and he’ll just drift like an unmoored boat, waiting for someone to tell him what his priorities are.
Clearly there isn’t enough revenue because the government isn’t spending enough.