The Washington Examiner‘s editorialist joins in on the chorus of complaining that began after Pres. Obama’s Tuesday fiscal speech at George Washington University and shows no signs of stopping. Up until now, the editorial whines (emphasis is mine):
Obama retained a reserve of public good will reflected in consistently strong personal favorability ratings. People who didn’t like his policies generally still saw Obama as a likeable guy, somebody they would enjoy having over for dinner with the family.But that may be changing. Recall that Obama invited House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to George Washington University to hear his Wednesday address on the federal government’s dire fiscal situation. The speech was advertised by the White House as a major address in which the president would join the serious conversation initiated two weeks ago by Ryan in his detailed proposal for cutting spending. What Obama instead delivered, with Ryan sitting in the front row, was, in the Wall Street Journal’s unsparing description, a “poison pen” speech dripping with mean-spirited partisanship, gross misrepresentations of fact, and sophistry of the lowest sort concerning Republicans’ alleged desire to hurt old people, the poor and mentally challenged children. It was the sort of harangue one would expect from a rabidly devoted partisan hack, with no relation whatever to the thoughtful appeals to reason and common values that historically have characterized presidential leadership in this country.
Obama then spent Thursday evening regaling an audience of Democratic donors with what he thought were off-the-record insider jabs about his recent budget negotiations with House Republicans, including this cheap shot at Ryan: “When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he’s just being America’s accountant, that he’s being responsible, I mean this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill — but wasn’t paid for. So it’s not on the level.” The reality is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars under President Bush were regularly funded by Congress, claiming tax cuts must be “paid for” is a hoary piece of Democratic class-warfare demagoguery, and the prescription drug plan Ryan supported cost half as much as the Democratic alternative then on the table. Such fact-free commentary is to be expected from blind partisans, but not the president of the United States.
Somehow, when Paul Ryan writes and House Republicans pass a budget that completely overturns the social contract established between the federal government and the American people — the most radical legislation since FDR and the New Deal — they are “[thoughtfully appealing] to reason and common values that historically have characterized presidential leadership in this country.” But when Pres. Obama sharply criticizes that budget plan in a speech that everyone knew would focus on the economy and the 2012 budget, he is a “partisan hack.” And when he makes the same points at a private campaign funding event, and his remarks are captured on an open mic, he is using a “poison pen” approach.
But the most egregiously dishonest part is that sentence I have bolded. Ron Chusid does an excellent smackdown (emphasis is mine):
Rather than engage in any form of honest discussion of the issues, conservative prefer to pretend they are victims. Of course the editorial cherry picks statements out of context and fails to report the full argument in order to falsely claim Obama was giving “fact-free commentary.” Obviously the wars were paid for. That is not the issue. The problem is that Bush paid for two wars without raising money to offset the costs, and ran much of them off the books to make it appear he did not run up the deficit as much as he did.
Similarly George Bush passed a prescription drug bill without consideration of where the money would be taken from, and even threatened to fire the chief Medicare actuary if he testified before Congress about the true cost of the plan. On top of this, the plan was structured to primarily provide corporate welfare to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, costing taxpayers far more than the actual benefits to Medicare beneficiaries would cost.
The concept here is simple. Democrats such as Obama practice real world economics where you can spend money on needed programs, but you must also account for where the money is coming from. Republicans practice Voodoo Economics based upon the borrow and spend principle. To them deficits do not matter when they are spending the money, but the deficit is suddenly the number one issue when a Democrat is in office and trying to fix the damage they caused.
Once you consider real world economics, you realize that saying tax cuts must be “paid for” is hardly an example of class warfare. It is just common sense. You cannot simultaneously cut taxes and increase spending as the Republicans did.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.