Second verse same as the first...
President Obama's jobs speech as it's being reported was simply more of the same. Maybe a little less blaming Bush, but all and all just another hodge podge of targeted this and one-time that, essentially nothing that would really change the game.
Did the President even hint at this fundamental issue in his jobs speech? Not really.
What we got from the President was a cobbled together rehash of tiny, targeted tax cuts, some that made no sense (a silly tax credit for hiring someone who's been out of work more than six months? Does any business choose or vet a new employee like this?)
He calls for more "infrastructure spending", and more straw men arguments with millionaire and billionaire "fair share" rhetoric. None of it was serious and wasn't meant to be, because it was simply campaign politics. Not that anyone was really expecting different, but why such a build-up, why such expectations only to deliver such a turd? Simple, he and his ideological brethren are incapable of any admission that their philosophy is defective(absent Utopia).
One thing that the President says - repeatedly - is absolutely true. We didn't get into this mess overnight and we won't get out of it overnight. Then why the short term gimmicks and targeted stimulus when fundamental changes are called for? Simple, he and his ideological brethren are incapable of any admission that their philosophy is defective.
So imagine my surprise to find The New York Times (aforementioned ideological brethren) had published an opinion piece that echoed my previous post The message, not the messenger. The message that Washington DC is broken and both parties are corrupt is so patently obvious to any conscious human being that it seems odd a major newspaper needs to even highlight the subject. In a rare commentary in said newspaper Sarah Palin's substantive words are examined - fairly...
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.
There's even more cogent analysis of what Palin said in her Indianola, Iowa speech in the NYT article. Perhaps the President should co-opt some of these sentiments as his own. No doubt the adoring media would run with it and it might just be a difference maker in his reelection bid. He won't of course, but why not? Simple, he and his ideological brethren are incapable of any admission that their philosophy is defective.