If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
The Blog
We should let our moral compass guide us as America decides how its tax dollars are spent. The Republicans and President Obama are offering two different visions of prosperity. The question is, "Prosperity for whom?"
What's the best way to most succinctly describe the president's and the Republicans' competing visions? By examining the role of government. We should do our best to understand what the private market does best and what it does least well.
President Obama's latest budget includes $27.2 million in aid for Myanmar, with a focus on "strengthening civil society." The best way to accomplish that would be to reestablish the International Military Education and Training program.
Small-business owners are holding their collective breaths as the Obama Administration's proposed budget wends its way through the politically-charged Congress.
The Western world is divided between two visions of our economic future. One is of austerity and the other is of growth. One is of hope and possibility, the other of despair and cynicism. The battle between these two visions has divided the United States and the entire Western world.
One of the unshakable myths of the punditariat is that the federal government is going bankrupt because of entitlements spending, especially spending on Medicare and Medicaid. This is a stampede of unreason, contradicted by the facts.
Since Ted Kennedy's passing, not one member of Congress out of 525 has stepped up to champion poor children -- not one bleeding heart liberal, not one self-proclaimed Christian has come forward to be the voice for homeless and hungry children.
In terms of actual cuts in defense spending, Obama is shifting the focus from what is known to work in missile defense to developing futuristic missile intercepts which will require years of experimenting at great expense to taxpayers while a vulnerable America waits.
Sometimes you just get the feeling that the various people with whom you're arguing all got together a few days ago and agreed on a talking point. In almost every single debate I've had regarding the president's budget plan, when confronted with the fact that they have thus far refused to accept new tax revenues as part of a deal for deficit reduction, conservatives cry foul. To the contrary, they cry. They'd be happy with far more revenue than the $1.5 trillion called for in the president's budget. But it must come from "lowering the rates and broadening the base." So let's explore exactly what this means.
In every budget President Obama has sent to Congress, he has signaled to the American public that promoting private giving is not his priority: each year he has proposed a cut to the charitable deduction.
With this budget, Obama shows there are some grounds for optimism at last. But it is also a reminder of how much farther there is to go.
As the culmination of themes developed by the White House these past three years, the FY13 budget reveals the contours of the ground on which Obama wishes to fight the presidential election.
The great fear a year ago when President Obama unveiled his budget for 2012 was that he caved to the GOP and Tea Party hardliners and axed dozens of vital programs. The fears have mostly proved groundless. But Obama had to walk a perilous line.
Many questions loom over the Super Committee's work, but perhaps the biggest is whether the stripped-down process that Congress established for it can overcome Washington gridlock, or whether special interests will prevail.
Today, President Obama unveiled a truly populist agenda, by proposing to tax millionaires at the same tax rate that middle-class Americans pay. By doing so, Obama will (hopefully) redefine the term "populism" in the political conversation.
