A few days ago in the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes contended that President Obama has been “utterly transparent . . . , it’s abundantly clear that he has one thing in mind these days: getting reelected.”
The Democrat showed this most recently in the back-and-forth with House and Senate Republicans over the payroll tax cut–when he dropped the surtax on millionaires. In order to score a political point or two (and he may have scored as many as three), he offered a tax cut that wasn’t paid for. Recall that he faulted his predecessor for giving us “tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for.”
And now he’s gone and done the same thing. He’s given us a tax cut that’s not paid for.
It’s all politics for him. He postures as a tax cutter without offering compensating cuts. He hasn’t offered a plan to cut the deficit, heck, heck, he didn’t even put forward a budget this year that could garner a single Democratic vote in the U.S. Senate. Instead of bring people together, as he promised in his campaign, he’s dividing us — so he can rally his base and win votes.
“If Republicans had championed the payroll tax reduction,” Barnes quipped, “Obama would no doubt be accusing them of bankrupting Social Security.”
FROM THE COMMENTS: Kurt calls the “payroll tax cut extension. . . a ridiculous political gimmick”:
it would be laughable if it weren’t so indicative of much greater problems in our political system. How was it the press could even seriously report on the “payroll tax cut extension” being worth $1,000 a year to someone who makes $50,000 when this latest vote was only over a two-month extension, or about $166.67 of that $1,000? And when has passing legislation that expired in two months ever been a sign of good or mature governance? A serious press would have called Obama and the Democrats on their divisive attempt to pass ridiculous legislation only for the purpose of scoring a few political points.