Is anyone besides Ron Paul serious about our deepening national financial crisis?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama's $3 trillion debt reduction plan is really a huge tax increase accompanied by very small and somewhat questionable spending cuts.
The president wants $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, according to the Washington Times.
His plan will go nowhere in Congress.
Besides the $1.5 trillion in new taxes, here are the president's ideas of spending cuts:
Find "waste" in Medicare. Where have we heard that before?
Count savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was going to happen anyway.
Count lower interest costs on national debt.
Where are the cuts? There's no entitlement reform in this plan, no orders to cut the federal workforce, to cut the budgets by a significant amount or to close overseas military bases.
There's no means test for Social Security, no raising of the retirement age. Nothing.
Meanwhile, as we wait for the so-called Super Committee to come up with its plan, this deficit situation is a ticking time bomb.
Here's the scary truth: Even if the committee manages to come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, it's a miniscule drop in the bucket.
The United States is more than $14 trillion in debt and we are adding to this debt at the staggering rate of more than $1 trillion in deficits per year.
So even if the government cuts $3 trillion or $4 trillion over 10 years, we will still have a national debt of $21 trillion in 10 years: $7 trillion more than we have now.
The federal government knows this full well and refuses to be realistic about how dangerous our predicament is.
Here’s my question to you: Is anyone besides Ron Paul serious about our deepening national financial crisis?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How much of a problem does President Obama have with his own party?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
There are a lot of unhappy Democrats these days, and they are setting their sights directly on President Obama.
A group of liberal leaders says they want to field a slate of candidates against President Obama in the primaries. Just what he needs.
Ralph Nader tells the Washington Times that without an intraparty challenge, the liberal agenda will be ignored.
Nader - who has repeatedly been ignored by the voters in presidential elections - says Obama running unopposed will kill voter enthusiasm and that voters won't get to see the real differences between the democrats and republicans.
More than 45 liberal leaders support this idea. They point to President Obama's handling of the Wall Street bailouts, the wars, Libya, the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the debt ceiling deal... just a short list of grievances.
Meanwhile the head of the Congressional Black Caucus says unhappy members of his group would probably be marching on the White House if Mr. Obama weren't president.
Black leaders have been begging the president to address unemployment among African-Americans - which is close to 17%. Almost double the national average.
Finally - one of Mr. Obama's hometown newspapers, The Chicago Tribune, is running a column called Why Obama Should Withdraw.
Columnist Steve Chapman suggests not running for re-election might be a sensible thing for Obama to do.
He says the president might do his party a favor by stepping aside, taking the blame and letting someone else replace him at the top of the ticket. Someone like, oh, say, Hillary Clinton.
Here’s my question to you: How much of a problem does President Obama have with his own party?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments