As Barack Obama beats the default drums louder, the White House and Congress are finally taking steps toward moving in concert instead of sitting on the sidelines vocalizing and tweeting at each other.
Now the usual reliable sources whisper that the President “wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade.”
In the light of two and a half years of dysfunctional hoofing, can Obama and Boehner suddenly turn into Astaire and Rogers without tripping all over the feet of their party members?
As they prepare for serious steps, there is nervousness among Democrats that the President may go too far on Social Security while Republicans are worrying that their Speaker could stop moving to the right on tax increases.
MORE.
Is corporate welfare on the table?
I’d like to see corporate welfare abolition (or at least reduction, and abolition of the truly senseless or unjustifiable examples) as part of an agreement.
Who cares if they “run away” with overdue reform and even austerity?
It would be truly refreshing as well as so very long overdue.
(I’d also like to see a reduction or abolition of at least the most truly senseless things done by the feds, namely the examples at least in which multiple endeavors by the feds work at cross purposes. At least choose one stance on something, only!)
By the way, Prof, about corporate welfare: long ago I thought of a public display associated with this, a “symbolic” gesture that would or could be entertaining. It was motivated by Jack in the Box and an ad showing the dynamiting of the old Jack.
If corporate welfare were ended, I thought of a public display in which Robert Reich would be invited to push the plunger to dynamite an object signed “Corporate Welfare.”
(Reich is extremist at times but is a good liberal source to me.)
Quick related side note