Political Yen/Yang has a piece today about the leanings our of current prez, dating back to the campaign. While these leanings are clearly visible to any conservative they're unhinged rantings to many on left. Those same liberals just months ago considered Bush a kind of secular anti-Christ due to his core conservative beliefs, which to many of them meant no abortion, no gay marriage, and perpetual war.
So.. they did what they felt necessary to stop him by using fear and disinformation and ridiculous strawmen and some of the same slogans now appearing on the right, such as "take our country back". In retrospect their whining about Bush trashing the Constitution is looking more quaint by the day but will the right head down the same road?
To some degree that's Sunsett's point:
Shifting too far to either extreme cannot sustain a nation. It cannot keep the body of that nation, stable, healthy, and growing strong.In other words, some amount of gridlock is good. Had we had a balanced government attacking this financial "rough patch" it's likely the medicine wouldn't have been worse than the disease. One-sided governments tend to be too ideological and end up forcing distasteful things on vast numbers of people, who tend to not react pleasantly, leading to destabilization.
Case in point, the AIG protesters threatening people's homes. Or perhaps Fred Smith, the CEO of Federal Express, who has threatened to pull his order for Boeing 777 freighters if the government goes through with legislation that would remove Fed Ex workers out from under the Railway Labor Act and put them under the Teamsters, which would give UPS a competitive advantage. In a brazen act of disloyalty, US Rep Steve Cohen switched sides to back Fed Ex and all the property taxes they represent. But going through with the threat means bad things (and hard feelings) for Seattle residents.
But back to the budget. When Bush introduced his first long term budget in early 2001 he was operating off a surplus and figured the trillion-plus surpluses would continue until about now. That rosy forecast gave him an opening for tax cuts and prescription drug benefits without having anyone claim he was breaking the piggybank to do it. He didn't figure on 9/11 or Katrina. We see how that worked out.
Obama is doing the same thing except he's starting from deep in the red, figuring everything will only get better over time without factoring in the unforeseen. This is akin to a fool carrying massive credit card debt buying a yacht and saying he'll cut his credit card debt in the next few years only to have the stove, refridge, TV and heater conk out shortly thereafter. He's stuck with bankruptcy but America, and her future generations, don't have that option.
Think about it. Any man who would stand in front of millions and calmly announce that doubling the deficit is the only way to cut it in half in four years is either lying through his teeth, a moron, or has only one shot left to enact the 'change' he campaigned on--changing America to a more socialist state. That he's willing to take the colossal risk of racking up trillions of debt when one massive domestic terrorist attack could leave us in tatters means only one thing--this is his last shot. He knows 2010 is coming and with it perhaps a different kind of 'change'. So perhaps now is the time to take on Obama's Civilian Pledge Army and voice your displeasure. Who knows, maybe a few Republicans will stand up with you. Or even a few moderate Dems.