Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."
Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
Then we compare. . .
Scoff if you will but Limbaugh makes a perfectly good point: why not have things both ways? When energy costs sky-rocketed last summer, the debate was over more exploration and conservation. Why not both? Why not drill more and encourage "green" energy development. Let the marketplace of ideas settle this thing.
I believe you know the answer to that as well as I: this is politics. And politics doesn't pay if both sides win. And politicians aren't in it for you or me. They're in it for themselves.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment