While President Barack Obama was in Hawaii calling Americans “lazy,” the super committee is headed for failure. President Obama, throughout his presidency, has avoided the issue of fiscal responsibility. When former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) presented him with a report that contained inconvenient choices, he ignored it.
With the so-called Super Ccommittee not reaching a decision, he decided to leave the country. He went to France on November 3-4, 2011, to attend the G20 Summit, and to Australia on November 16-17, 2011, on an official state visit. BTW, two previous Australia trips were canceled due to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. So the “scheduled trips” argument won’t work here. Further, while Hawaii is not out of the country, he was there on November 12-13, 2011, hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).
And we all know his (non)decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
So now with the Super Committee failing and economic leadership needed, Obama is again absent. President Obama appears deliberately to be keeping his distance from the Super Committee. In his first public appearance since returning from a nine-day overseas trip, Obama said nothing about the Super Committee deadline. Instead, Obama made a generic push for Congress to “keep working.” There is general agreement by Obama and people around him that there is nothing to be gained by doing something that involves making so many difficult decisions to straighten out our nation’s fiscal future, like agreeing not just to slow growth of the federal government, but to reduce it.
The idea of expanding government fits perfectly with his message of class warfare that has been chosen for reelection of Obama and Democrats in Congress. As far as Obama is concerned, the taxing potential of our country has just started to be exploited. So why would Obama wish to reduce federal government growth, and the power that comes with it, if he wishes to pursue social justice agendas? The only effective way to incite class envy is to take from those who are deemed to have too much and redistribute it to those deemed to not have enough. The question is often asked, “How much is enough?” Why does the MSM cite, in one article, a food shortage “crisis,” while in another article, often beside the food shortage article, cite an obesity “crisis?” Food is but one example of this “crisis” mode of management. It, as with all crises, empowers the few to tell the many how to live their lives. It concentrates power, which is what growing government is primarily about.
It would be nice to see some leadership from Obama, even if it means he must cast aside his desire to see the government grow long enough to help himself get reelected. His frequent absences and lack of leadership are just fine with the kool-ade drinkers who want to see him reelected and government growth.
Are we beginning to see a pattern here? And, as always, readers are free to write sourced rebuttals.
But that’s just my opinion.Powered by Sidelines