an op-ed piece that caught my eye today in the New York Times. Presumably free to speak his mind now, this is what he said:
"The nation faces a nasty dual deficit problem: a painful jobs deficit in the near term and an unsustainable budget deficit over the medium and long term. This month, the Senate will be debating an issue with significant implications for both — what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
"In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether. Ideally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it.
"Why does this combination make sense? The answer is that over the medium term, the tax cuts are simply not affordable. Yet no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned."
Cutting taxes right now on people who create jobs? Gee, now there's a thought.
After throwing a TRILLION DOLLARS at the economy in "stimulus spending" that hasn't stimulated much yet, with another $50 Billion announced today, and watching unemployment rise to 9.6 percent in August. . .
. . . cutting taxes sounds like something right out of the Ronald Reagan playbook.
But we didn't have to wait long for Obama's response. We won't adopt, he adamantly proclaims, "the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place."