Charles Krauthammer says that Obama has conned Republicansinto agreeing to a second stimulus even bigger than the first.Democrats are too stupid to see this (and Republicans are even morestupid, presumably, since they are the victims).
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 -and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struckthis week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in Americanhistory, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It willpump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over thenext two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up tothe next presidential election. This is a defeat?
He's right about the Democrats' stupidity, but this is not Krauthammer at his most lucid.
Yes, Democrats are fools to tear their hair out over this deal,which gives them most of what they wanted: the middle-class tax rates,unemployment benefit extension, payroll-tax cut, and so on. Theycompound the idiocy by advertising higher taxes on the rich as theircore objective. Forget relieving poverty, widening access to healthcare, improving opportunities for the disadvantaged. What matters morethan any of that is sticking it to "millionaires and billionaires"(two-earner households making more than $250,000). You bet, theDemocrats are acting like fools.
But this stimulus is not bigger than the first, not even close.Two-thirds of its "cost" is keeping tax rates where they currently are.There is no new stimulus in failing to put taxes up--in forgoing adrastic fiscal tightening that nobody wanted and nobody expected.Unlike Krauthammer, I think further short-term stimulus makes sense, soI welcome the $300 billion (over two years) or so of extra stimulus inthe deal. Oppose this if you like, but please don't call it a biggerstimulus than the first.
In any event, the key question is this: does Krauthammer oppose thedeal? Having declared Obama guilty of a massive swindle, and recallingthat he is opposed to all of Obama's sinister purposes, Krauthammer isobliged by his own logic to say what a bad thing the agreement must be.So what exactly did he want to happen? Presumably, raise everybody'staxes next month, with an especially steep rise for $250,000+households. Has he previously advocated this policy? Maybe he has, andI missed it; if so, I apologize. But if he agrees it makes sense fornow to keep taxes where they are, which has been the Republicans'defensible position, what is so bad about what just happened?Krauthammer is left opposing it because Obama was in favour. It is notevery day that Krauthammer is backed into an absurd and dishonestposition by his own logic.
What about the long-term deficit? This deal, if temporary, haslittle effect on that either way, and could easily be deficit-reducingif it avoids a second dip (as Krauthammer seems to concede it might).Obviously, the long-term deficit remains a huge concern. Tackling thatrequires prolonged Bowles-Simpson-type efforts that were not on theagenda for this deal. They should have been, but they weren't. Was thata reason for rejecting the deal and letting taxes rise next month? Ithink not. Again, if that is the outcome Krauthammer wanted, then allright. But if that is not his position, then he is the fraud.
Read David Brooks instead.
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét