February 04, 2010
The president is no team playerNeil Braithwaite
After losing a close game, the coach put his arm around the young rookie quarterback who came off the bench to try to spark a comeback for his team. In an unsettling retort to his coach's encouragement, Tom Brady said, "I gave it my best shot coach, but remember, I inherited that situation."
A young relief pitcher was called in with the game tied in the bottom of the 9th inning with a runner on third and no outs. As he takes the ball from the manager, Mariano Rivera looks into the manager's eyes and says, "I'll give it my best coach, but remember, I inherited this situation."
These two scenarios seem unimaginable in the world of sports. In fact, if they had really happened, you may not have expected these two players would have ever become superstars.
Any player with that attitude would be toxic to a team. And that kind of attitude would not be tolerated for an instant from any coach, teammate, or fan for that matter. Their selfishness and egotism would always upset the balance and continuity of team play, making it very difficult to win. As a detriment to the team, they would be eliminated as soon as possible. (Contracts not withstanding)
However, there have been instances of players like this. Take Terrell Owens for example. He never took responsibility for a loss and always made sure any blame landed on someone else. He was shuffled from team to team and always with the same result - he didn't last. Owens has great talent, but because he's not a team player, he'll always exit early.
I preface my political point with all of this because it is painfully relevant to our situation in America today. After playing for a full year and no longer considered a rookie, it seems obvious that America has recruited a President who continues to exhibit these same toxic characteristics.
For years Barack Obama wanted to play on the team. No, he begged to play on the team. He asked over and over to be put in the game. He was adamant and confident that only he could win. He even promised the team and fans that he would win. Yes, Barack Obama made it abundantly clear to the whole world that he was the one the team had been waiting for and he wanted the ball - in a big way!
So with great hope and anticipation for a game changer, America gave the ball to Barack Obama late in the fourth quarter when things weren't looking so good.
The rookie took the ball and began to swell with pride as he reminded team America in the face of this great adversity -- they could count on him -- but he also made it very clear to the team that he inherited this whole situation.
With three years left on Obama's contract, how is America's franchise player working out for the team now?
Neil Braithwaite is a Real Estate Broker and writer in Charlotte, NC. He writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Why all the cut and paste from the right?
Is Chaney going to answer the budget challenge? Is he up to it or is it too daunting?
Slash Everything 10%, simple. Get rid of all these useless government non-military union employees. Don't need any more takers, just creators! Have a nice weekend!
Mark - Not a bad sentiment, but that wouldn't do it...
Interest can't be slashed at all. How do you specifically cut Medicare? Who will elect you proposing a 10% social security cut? Most important - what are the implications for the economy if you remove even $1T (70% of the deficit) of activity? Answer - roughly double the drop in GDP, or worse, than the darkest moment in our current crisis. Surely, that won't be very good on the revenue side. In fact, it would approximate what Hoover (R) did.
Frankly - I like your idea of spreading the pain - but it still won't get you there. That is how upside down things are, and yes, it is Bush and the Republican Congresses fault.
THANK YOU for answering the challenge. You are showing some courage that your co-bloggers apparently lack. You have a great weekend too!
I agree interest cannot be cut but principal can be and thus resulting in a lower balance. No I would not cut Medicare or Social Security - they are social contracts that must be paid. I would start to extend the date that you can obtain these benefits little by little - for example those at 50 would have their benefits obtained 6 months later and those at 49 would have obtain their benefits 7 months later and so on. People are living and working much longer so this should not be a problem. Most people are forced to work until they can obtain Medicare anyway.
Also all TARP repayments should be given back. Along with that all unused Stimulus Money should be given back - it is a total failure. Most of the money was given to states to prop up union jobs within the states. That would take care of a great deal of the $1T.
As far as getting elected, people need a dose of reality - if they don't like my idea - OK, don't vote for me. But, I believe people would like to hear some real straight talk. Ross Perot held everybody's attention for awhile and rightly so. Even though I was not a supporter of his - he changed the ballgame with straight talk about the economy and government. Obama's problem is that he went so overboard on his soaring rhetoric and now it's time to pay the piper.
Another part of this is that we need to cut way back on government employees. If any employee in the private sector finds a way to save money - in my mind it's bonus time for that employee. Not so in government - they have to spend the budget or get cut back. Just a fundamental difference.
Actually when he was elected - I thought let's give him a chance. By the way I did not vote for either McCain or Obama - I felt it was better to let the country go through a STRONG dose of Liberalism and stood back and said "prove me wrong". I'm still waiting. He wanted to be elected and made many promises, now we are holding him to account. He has, I believe only the 2nd Super Majority ever - no excuses. He was elected to fix it - do it!
10% is actually not that much of a cut across the board. In fact I would find ways to bonus government employees who could decrease costs.
Anyway just my thoughts, somewhat disjointed - to much coffee!
Mark -
Surprisingly, we agree on a lot. Jim & I have long agreed that SS and Medicare eligibility ages need to be gradually raised to 72 +/-. Unfortunately, this doesn't cut spending - it merely slows the growth.
Your point about getting elected is correct. I would also run into an electoral chainsaw with some of my proposals. However - all of the easy stuff has been done and we can't take politically difficult stuff off the table.
Once we are unequivocally out of recession and growing jobs again, I would support some significant budget cuts. Unfortunately, it won't do that much to balance the budget. If we could cut 10% from the budget, it would be a historic event. Unfortunately, our deficit would remain over $1T! FY2010 has budgeted revenue of $2.3T and $3.6T in spending. You would have to cut 36% from spending to balance the budget and of course, that wouldn't do it because of the implications to the GDP. It would actually bring on GDII and federal revenues would plummet.
Again - that is how far out of whack we find ourselves today. Never mind for a moment how we got here. What on earth do we do now?
I'm not sure if you were on the blog when I was recommending "The New American Economy" by Bruce Bartlett - former high official with CATO and the Heritage Foundation. He was one of the author's of Reagan's tax cuts. He makes no apologies for his supply side background. He points out that circumstances are far different today then they were then.
I bought the book for Jim and he didn't get past the introduction. He complained that there wasn't enough attention paid to spending cuts. If you read the whole thing you will learn a great deal about our economic history since the 1920s. He colorfully describes what was going on at the time and what the theories were. With the benefit of hindsight, he analyses the successes and failures in a very objective manner. He is a conservative and points out that Keynes himself was conservative. John Maynard advocated no free lunches and he recognized that we must have surpluses during growth to pay for the deficits during recession.
At the end of the day, Bartlett points to our fiscal situation and says we need a lot more in tax revenue if we want to have our existing social safety net including (primarily) SS and Medicare. If we were to eliminate those programs and many others, we could probably live with our current revenue stream. But it really is one or the other. There is no growing our way out of it and if you run the numbers, it's rather obvious.
Bartlett supports a VAT - he explains that it will cause the least drag to the economy of the tax options. He will tell you and so will I that Clinton's top marginal rates are about as high as you can go, and we will soon be back to those. So - our added revenues will not come just from the wealthy. They will need to come from everybody.
You do not need to agree with his conclusions to enjoy the book. You are both conservatives. It is a great history lesson. Finally - it is a quick read. Maybe Jim will give you his copy.
Baxter,
Slowing growth is still progress and is a start.
I agree with you in many respects. I believe there are other areas - we could go with limited earmarks unless they are voted on by the full Congress on a case by case basis and not buried in a bill, and they are out in front of the American people. Let's get a look at these. Also all lobbyists should have to be registered with that particular earmark so we know who is pushing it. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with groups wanting to push their agenda, I just want to know who they are.
I disagree that we can not cut budgets now, there is always more room. We need to find ways to cut and become more efficient - even if that means putting pressure on those running the programs, plus there is so much duplication. We need to change the mindset of getting more money for the budget to becoming more efficient and cutting costs with pay for performance.
Quite frankly, at this point I don't care how we got here except from a historical point of view, I love history. We have a problem now and it needs to be solved and it's not going to be easy to do what needs to be done. That's why we are in such need of someone who can take the bull by the horns and tell the truth about what needs to be done - whether they are Dems, Repubs or Independents. I believe if someone was really honest and did not try to cater to every different need - the American people would love it. They just need to know how to dig in. Rhetoric on takes you so far.
I am very familiar with Bruce Bartlett but only on excerpt basis. I will pick up the book you recommended.
I have seen the VAT tax upfront in Canada where the tax is collected throughout the entire process and then each new part of the production is taxed allowing for a deduction for the previous amounts taxed which creates an entire new set of bureaucrats to monitor the process.
Everyone and I mean everyone needs to pay taxes. Many people under $100,000 pay very little in taxes. That is one of the reasons why California has so many problems. They have raised taxes so many times on the upper incomes they have no where else to go - thus the income stream is not constant and stable. Many of the upper incomes are leaving in droves.
Post a Comment