President Obama called on Congressional Republicans to raise taxes on “corporate-jet owners” to decrease the deficit in a press conference at the White House this morning.
Adding to his repertoire of political metaphors, the president contrasted what he considered Congress’s dillydallying on increasing the debt limit with his two daughters’ diligent school work: “Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. . . . They’re not pulling all nighters. They’re 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you’ve got to do something, just do it.”
When asked whether August 2 really was the cut-off date for a deal, Obama answered, “The yellow light is flashing but it hasn’t been a red light yet. . . . By August 2, we run out of tools to make sure that all our bills are paid.” If the U.S. defaults, “the consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable.”
“It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is,” Obama said earlier, warning that if Congress did, “that means we have to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship” and that “food safety may be compromised” among other unpopular spending cuts.
Citing former GOP senators Alan Simpson and Pete Domenici, Obama insisted that “every single observer . . . who’s not a politician says we can’t reduce our deficit in the scale or scope that we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything.”
“So we’re going to keep having these conversations,” he said, “and my belief is the Republican leadership in Congress will hopefully sooner rather than later come to the conclusion that they need to make the right decisions for the country.”
Asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd about New York’s new gay-marriage law, Obama avoided a direct answer, but hinted at his approval, saying “I think we’re moving in a direction of greater equality and I think that’s a good thing.”
When the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler asked a follow-up question about his personal beliefs on marriage, Obama dodged by joking, “I’m not going to be making news on that today.”
Later, the president, who stressed he would revise any cumbersome regulations, flashed his frustration with the business community’s complaints about red tape. “The business community is always complaining about regulations,” he sighed. “Because frankly they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits.”
He gave a tepid defense of Boeing in its recent dustup with the National Labor Relations Board. After cautioning that the NLRB is “an independent agency” and the case was “up for a judge to decide,” he said, “What I think defies common sense would be a notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can’t come to a sensible agreement.”
Turning to Afghanistan, the president explained his draw down of troops in that country “after ten very long years.” The drawdown would operate in a “responsible way,” the president stressed, and put pressure on al-Qaeda until that network was “entirely defeated.”
“Kabul is much safer than it was,” Obama argued, when asked about news of a recent terrorist attack on a hotel in the Afghan capital. But “our work is not done.” Of Afghanistan and Iraq, the president counseled, “These are still countries that are digging themselves out of a lot of war.”
Asked whether Moammar Qaddafi’s ouster was necessary in Libya, Obama said he hoped the leader would step down and maintained, “He needs to go.”
Returning to the economy, Obama repeated some of his suggestions to reboot the private sector: keeping the payroll-tax holiday for another year, passing free-trade agreements, and expediting the patenting process — all things, he claimed, that Congress could do “right now.”
An extraordinarily petulant and partisan performance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusepar for the course
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo new taxes, period. If Obama's failed Keynesian economic policies are not generating sufficient revenue to cover his profigerate spending, too bad for him and his party.
We need an immediate cut in FY 12 of $500 billion as a downpayment to deficit reduction.
I wish Boehner and/or McConnell would say how much they are seeking in FY 12 to cut spending in their public comments. We could help if they would let us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama has provided so much campaign ad material! The metaphor about not procrastinating could be contrasted with his countless golf outings and the missing Democrat budget.
His statement about Congress avoiding hard votes juxtaposed with the Harry Reid not bringing a budget forward for votes.
And on and on....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is on the attack, and with good reason. He sees an opening. Dems know the issue of tax breaks on corporate jets is a powerful symbol, and very useful as Congress gets into the heart of budget negotiations. This is the "grocery scanner moment" for Republicans, and they are falling right into the trap.
Take Jack Fowler's post below, where he celebrates Fred Thompson advocating "cuts" instead of "soaking the rich"... and then proceeds in the very next sentence to hawk NR's lovely $2,000 cruise.
"Reserve your beautiful stateroom today!"
Wow. Tin-ear much?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCheap shots and slander win, in other words.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't knock it. Dems used it very effectively to get Obama elected and the media is uses it every day to bash our frontrunners. Sad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Dems know the issue of tax breaks on corporate jets is a powerful symbol..."
Until it is pointed out that Dems renewed the corporate jet tax breaks in 2009.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, yes, and Dems should also know the issue of tax breaks on owners of top hats, monacles, spats, toy dogs, champagne flutes, yachts, and white gloves are also powerful symbols.
This is all just cheap, embarrassing class warfare. What an utter crock.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClass warfare IS quite effective, when one class has weathered this recession with no real problem - hell, profited tremendously! - which the others have stagnated or fallen behind.
Republicans aren't going to be able to ride this one through by simply repeating the same economic arguments from the last decade over and over again. There are too many potential attacks Obama and the Dems can lob at them, and the public is too jumpy and receptive right now to get excited about the same old message of 'cut taxes for the wealthy, and wait for it to trickle down to you.'
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHehehehehe...
It is such an amazing comedy of errors. Did Obama actually mention "free-trade agreements". The same three created by the sound Bush Administration he has opposed for Partisan - Union devotions? And still does nothing about?
""“Kabul is much safer than it was,” Obama argued, when asked about news of a recent terrorist attack on a hotel in the Afghan capital...""
Yeah, as soon as Obama runs for Political reasons to try to desperately save his reelection chances, the Terrorists see opportunity and strike. Put those recent deaths and attacks on the record as a response to Obama's pathetic Political exploitation of the US ARMED SERVICES. Afghanistan is a WAR he selected, and has only enabled the very worst.
Meanwhile 'smart power' bombs Libya, and cannot even call it a WAR! Did anyone ask him about Syria? The "Reformer" who is slaughtering 13 year old Children? Where is the Obama Administration - the Clinton State Department?
Did anyone ask Mr. Obama if he is going to have another JOB summit? Or if he felt that last one actually worked? Was the GE CEO sitting by his side when he made this Press Conference?
Carter must be thrilled, as another Democratic Partisan is now taking his place as the biggest JOKE of all time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo it's an accepted premise that the prez can use his discretion to say who pays the freight on these massive public expenditures. American jet owners pay, other American s can put their wallets away.
Question: if it's a question of picking who pays, why necessarily pick Americans? I mean, why not stick someone non-American with the bill? Germany is growing accustomed to this. And China has to be expecting it. A jet in every American driveway!
Just kidding: class warfare is much better than global imperialism. Or splitting the tab fairly. Or spending less.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI work on Wall Street, and everyone here knows that the carried interest taxation for private equity fund managers is a complete and utter scam. The tax break is so big that it's worth it to spend lots of money on back door bribes to politicians through campaign contributions to keep it, but no one -- no one -- actually thinks there is any legitimate justification for it. And any politician arguing in favor of it has been bought off, since they can't possible believe it makes sense on the merits unless they are a moron. Getting rid of that should be a very easy compromise for the Republicans to make in the final deal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt the age of 10 & 13, aren't most homework assignments over-night assignments? As in "Do problems 1-25 for class tomorrow." It's not like they have classes on alternate days like in college. There are probably some longer-term assignments like book reports, but that's not really "homework."
Talk about stretching a metaphor to the point that it's not applicable.
Know what else your girls learn in school? Telling the truth. It's easy; just do it. So let's be transparent and show us your college records, etc. and keep the promises about no new taxes for families earning under x-dollars per year.
Your girls also learn to "play fair." So how about nixing the NLRB / Boeing thing instead of pushing it in favor of your union buddies... or does "just doing" these things contradict with your "Chicago way"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA very minor point, but many middle and high schools DO have alternate class days. I did back in the early 70s and my kids did - in a different state - through the early 2000s
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen will the President, or his leadership in the Senate show the American people his/their detailed budget plan to counter Paul Ryan's and the Republican House? The answer, never. I wish our media class would challenge President Obama and Harry Reid on this. The Republicans, it seems, always put themselves in a position of negotiating with themselves. They stake out a public position and the Dems and the media shoot at it. Given where we are my view would be to call the Presidents bluff and eliminate all exemptions/tax breaks for all industries and pet projects, including "clean" energy and high speed rail. Or as he puts it, "eliminate cost in the tax code". Repuclicans should hold the line on taxes or go to a straight simplification plan - lower rates across the board with the elimination of all deductions and exemptions - both for individuals and corporations. With this they can also eliminate much of the IRS and the budget cost associated with tax compliance and enforcement. We can also but a major dent in the lobbying industry in Washington and the revolving door of politicians trading elected office for private gain. And by the way, maybe the President can take a couple less trips on his private jet, the one we all pay for, and save us a few million dollars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou all are sounding rather shrill and defensive. Even a teeny bit *sour.* Not at all the usual sunny triumphalism from the right that we all know and love.
Perhaps Republican lawmakers may just decide it's fortuitous for them to spend some extra time in Washington this summer rather than go home and face their constituents. Because we all really want to resolve these budget issues so America can begin to prosper again...DON'T WE?
Besides there may just be a few angry and awkward townhalls awaiting the GOP out there in the hinterland. ;-)
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe President declares "frankly," as if this is something not only not well known, but an insider's secret:
“The business community is always complaining about regulations,” he sighed. “Because frankly they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits.”
Thus we have a President more profundly ignorant of basic economics as any in history. Aside from the ignorance and niavete this reveals, does this man own any stocks? Have a 401K? Because I kinda sorta think that when he invests, he wants the people who run the companies he invests in to "maximize their profits."
More and more and more regulation? Of course, why not? Businesses always complain about those, what's a few more miles of red tape?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Because I kinda sorta think that when he invests, he wants the people who run the companies he invests in to "maximize their profits.""
Why do you say that? I invest money in stocks and the market, and I don't want my companies to simply 'maximize their profits.' I want them to strike a balance between 'maximizing profits' and 'doing the right thing.'
There are all sorts of unsavory ways that I could maximize profits in my own personal life; should I take those options each and every time? Is that how we want people to act and behave? I would submit that it is not.
The prez is right to say that maximization of profits is the reason businesses oppose regulation, and that this doesn't constitute a valid reason to do away with or avoid regulation. In large part, because these regulations limit the external effects of doing business which are felt by EVERYONE - not just the customers or investors in that business.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBig established companies don't mind excessive regulation because it stifles upstart competitors.
Big establishment can afford big compliance programs; your neighbor working out of his garage cannot. Crony incumbents wins, entrepreneurs lose.
So yeah, let's talk "frankly" about doing the right thing. For everyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse