The president’s evasion tactics on the debt and deficit
posted at 4:50 pm on June 29, 2011 by Tina Korbe
If that press conference doesn’t prove it, I don’t know what will: The president who campaigned on promises of increased transparency in government has turned out to be a master of evasion (and secret negotiations) instead.
With barely more than a month to go before the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline, President Barack Obama still refuses to really lay bare his budget and deficit reduction plans. Since he released his proposed budget earlier this year (a budget the Congressional Budget Office said would double the national debt and never achieve a deficit of less than $748 billion), he’s done nothing but deliver general remarks — and, as CBO director Doug Elmendorf said recently, the CBO doesn’t exactly score speeches.
Obama’s platitudes might have surface appeal — of course “we can focus on jobs at the same time that we focus on debt and deficit reduction” and of course “one of the most important things we can do for debt and deficit reduction is to grow the economy” — but they don’t deliver the specifics Congress and the public so desperately need to know before a last-minute vote on the debt limit.
(Of course, those specifics Obama did mention in the press conference this afternoon don’t exactly inspire confidence in the brilliance that supposedly simmers behind closed doors in Vice President Joe Biden’s rapidly collapsing secret deficit reduction talks. Praise for payroll tax reductions and unemployment insurance combined with criticism for corporate tax cuts doesn’t exactly bode well for a plan to reduce the deficit.)
Yet, the president still claimed today that he has led on this issue — and audaciously implied a Congressional vote to raise the debt ceiling should be just as much of a no-brainer as his daughters doing their homework.
But, as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, has said:
The president cannot ‘lead from behind’ in dealing with the most pressing crisis our nation faces—our exploding debt and the increasing damage it is doing to our economy.
It’s taking too long for a proposal to be presented, and it is clear now that optimistic statements about existing progress have been too generous. It will be unacceptable for the White House talks, or any talks, to produce a controversial decision at the 11th hour and for its passage to then be demanded in panic. Such an approach heightens the risk of failure.
Congress and the American people deserve a full opportunity to review and consider any debt limit deal that is struck behind closed doors.
Sessions is not the only person to have called for greater openness. (Here, for example, are Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) saying the same thing and a Fox News panel debating the issue, as well.) But history shows us we have every reason to expect the results of the Biden talks won’t be revealed until the last minute. Consider:
The stimulus bill in February 2009 was worked out by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in closed meetings.
The president’s number-one agenda item upon assuming office was to pass comprehensive health care reform. The bill was negotiated by a few select Democrat congressmen behind closed doors without C-SPAN cameras, then presented to Congress.
And this past spring, the deal that extended the Continuing Resolution and avoided a government shutdown was worked out in private between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker John Boehner, and President Obama. It was then “dropped into the legislative hopper with crisis providing motivation” to pass it or else.
To be fair, the president might have fostered an environment of secrecy, but he hasn’t received much help on the debt and deficit from Democrats in the Senate, who might have been able to prevent the need for the Biden talks in the first place, had they just passed a budget at any point in the past two years.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.
Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2