I watched most of Turbo Tax Timmy's interview on Fox News Sunday this AM. (Transcript
here.) A few things, I thought, were notable.
One was the apparently focus grouped word "cloud". Three times Turbo Tax Timmy mentioned "raising the cloud of default" that hovers over the country.
The idea that we're going to spend another seven months lifting the cloud of default from the American economy...
But they're going to look at whether we lift the cloud of default off the American economy...
And if Congress makes some sensible decisions right now, lifts this cloud of dysfunction, of default, off of the American economy...
He also used "specter" (the ghost, not Arlen) and I believe misspoke it once as "spectrum".
...we're trying to do avoid not just default today, but the specter of default in the future.
Note particularly the partisan blame game in this next quote:
And this spectrum of default that Republicans have put over the country is hurting the confidence of average Americans.
So, when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2010, and were Constitutionally required to submit a budget by October of 2010, wherein they could have addressed any budgetary cuts required, they failed to do so and this is why the
Republicans are at fault? Takes two to tango, Timmy! The Democrats' failure to provide any leadership at all up to this point is what fomented the crisis. And now, any Republican plan is met by demagoguery from the Dems (You can't spell "demagogue" without "dem"), which is what they do best.
For the Dems to paint themselves as blameless in this negotiation, in which there are things upon which they themselves will not compromise (like class envy), is rank hypocrisy. Had the 2010 budget been passed, perhaps there would at least be more of a framework to work with here.
However, it was for political reasons that the Dems abdicated their Constitutional duties. They knew that if the voters saw exactly how irresponsible their spending plans were, there would have been more Democrats
defeated in 2010. So they ignored the Constitution for the sake of holding on to power, hiding their intentions from the will of the people, so that there would be more of them to demagogue whatever plan the
real adults in the room, the Republicans, would put forward.
On a side note, when you're watching the Sunday shows, listen for that one word or phrase that keeps creeping into the conversation, like "cloud of default". It usually means that it's a word that focus groups reacted favorably to. In other words, it will help people buy what you're selling! The most adept interviewees will work this word both into their opening statement and again the last sentence they utter. The gratuitous use of the word in between those two statements is what the spinmeisters hope you will take away from their efforts.
Anyway, little Timmy believes that raising the "cloud of default" that hovers over the country is to do that which is "most important". Actually, kicking this can down the road past the next election is what this administration considers most important.
“We have to lift this credit default from the economy for -- you know, for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the table through the election”
Yeah. Right! Obama does not want his stewardship of the economy to be an issue in the 2012 election. The Dems would rather sweep it under the rug than to deal honestly with a problem that affects every household in the country. Notice that Obama and the Dems have stated they will not negotiate on any plan that needs to be re-examined between now and November 2012. Getting Obama re-elected is, as Ford used to say, "Job One".
There is class envy in Geithner's answers. The so called "shared burden", which of course means taking more from those who are productive, because the poor don't have a lot to share. (More on this in another post.) Note the language that Geithner uses, and know that it is not accidental. Geithner wants to raise taxes on the "most fortunate Americans". Get that? people haven't really
earned their money, they just "got lucky". "Fortune" smiled upon them and money apparently rained from the skies!
The hypocrisy in this? Our tax code is not set up to tax the fortunate, so much as people who actually produce something. If you inherited a lot of money, you may be "fortunate", but that's not "income". If you work for a living, or own a small business, that's income. And small businesses, which create the bulk of jobs in this country, are squarely in the cross hairs of this administration and their tax "revenue" plans.
Unfortunately, most liberals use a "static" model of the economy, which is "How do you divide up a pie that always stays the same size?" Only, it doesn't stay the same size. More economic activity can increase the size of the pie, providing more and more to more people, while disincentives can discourage economic growth and production and leave an even smaller "pie" to be divided.
Liberal ideologues, like Obama and Geithner talk about increasing tax "revenues", when historically, revenues to the treasury have
increased with the introduction of tax
cuts**. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, which employs more people who become taxpayers and increases the volume of productivity, which means the government collects less tax on any given individual, but more than makes up for it in the volume.
To the liberal ideologue, this is unacceptable. It offends their sense of "fairness". They would rather see Americans unemployed and businesses ruined than to compromise their class envy based belief system. Candidate Obama said as much, that he would make taxes more "fair" even if it meant less revenue to the government. This was long before he told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth".
Then, there is the obligatory: "Bush did it." When Chris Wallace pressed Geithner on poor unemployment and growth issues, here's what he had to say:
the American economy is still suffering undeniably from the tragic after-effects of the crisis this president inherited.
Translation: The effects of Bush's spending and participation in two "unpaid for" wars were so bad that Obama spending three to four times as much and involving us in yet another war and assorted :kinetic military actions" (KMA seems to be a recurring theme for the Obama administration, along with WTF*) cannot be blamed. The "denial" is all ours! Shutting down oil production in the Gulf and refusing to allow drilling and other activities that would increase the nation's wealth (and tax a portion of it as it grows) is not as important as appeasing the environmentalist wackos and trying to foist "green" solutions to every problem. Despite massive influxes of government cash, electric car companies and solar companies are going bankrupt or cutting back. Obama is sacrificing the economy of today for some imaginary tomorrow. Obama and Tim Geithner's plans for "winning" sound more like Charlie Sheen's.
I'll post video from the interview as soon as it becomes available.
*They say it means "Winning the future". Most people say it with regards to the
present actions of the president.
**JFK knew this. If only we had a few Democrats like JFK again! Well, in a sense we do. They're all Republicans now!
Cross posted at
LCR,
Say Anything.
