Visual source: Newseum
The New York Times:
This time, President Obama did not compromise with himself beforehand, or put out a half measure in hopes of luring nonexistent Republican support. This time, he issued an unabashed call for economic fairness in cutting the federal deficit, asking as much from those on the economy’s upper rungs as from those lower down whose programs may be trimmed.
And this time, standing in the Rose Garden on Monday, he seemed to speak directly to a public that has been parched for farsighted leadership in Washington. The one troubling note of the day was Mr. Obama’s failure to provide enough specifics on some of his proposals, and his aides’ inexplicable continued faith in the idea of Congress working out a sensible middle ground on taxes.
Eugene Robinson:
Republicans whine that, since they oppose raising taxes on the rich — and control the House of Representatives, which can block such legislation — Obama’s proposal should be seen as political, not substantive. This is just a campaign initiative, they say, not a “serious” plan to address the nation’s financial and economic woes.
But that’s pure solipsism: Whatever does not fit the GOP’s worldview is, by definition, illegitimate. By this standard, Obama could propose only measures that are in the Republican Party’s platform — which obviously would defeat the purpose of being elected president as a progressive Democrat in the first place.
Outside of the Republican echo chamber, polls consistently show the American people consider unemployment to be the nation’s most urgent problem, not deficits and debt. Obama was on target with the American Jobs Act he proposed this month; the only question was what took him so long.
Dana Milbank:
Let us begin by stipulating that President Obama’s new budget plan is unrealistic, highly partisan and a non-starter on Capitol Hill.
That’s what’s so good about it.
At last, the president hasn’t conceded the race before the starter’s gun, hasn’t opened the bidding with his bottom line, hasn’t begun a game of strip poker in his boxer shorts. Whichever metaphor you choose, it was refreshing to see the president in the Rose Garden on Monday morning delivering a speech that, for once, appealed to the heart rather than the cerebrum.
Star-Ledger Editorial Board:
In one sense, it is true. Obama would increase taxes on the wealthy and do all he can to protect programs that are important to the middle class, such as Medicare.
But is Obama picking a fight? Or did Republicans throw the first punches?
The facts on America’s growing class divide are irrefutable. Incomes for average Americans have been dropping for years, while incomes for the wealthiest among us have risen steadily. During the past two decades, the wealthiest 10 percent of earners have captured 100 percent of the gains from our economic growth. Despite the fact that worker productivity has risen steadily, none of the gains in that period went to the bottom 90 percent.
This isn’t the fault of Republicans. But Republicans have responded by making it worse.
Eugene Kane:
The class warfare mantra you hear from Republicans seems like a good indication of where their loyalties lie.
The political battles in D.C. fought over tax breaks for rich individuals and corporations always seem to feature GOP lawmakers on the side of the folks with Lear jets and golden parachutes.
Republicans claim that's because they want to protect those who create good jobs for the rest of us.
But since last month's report from the U.S. Department of Labor showed exactly zero new jobs were added to the U.S. economy in August, it seems all those rich folks must be sitting on their money while the rest of the country takes a turn for the worse.
Ryan, in particular, probably shouldn't bring up class warfare unless he wants to be reminded about being outed recently by a political website for buying a $350 bottle of wine during dinner with a group of economists in Washington, D.C.
James Surowiecki:
But people are underestimating a number of factors that could allow the G.O.P. to pursue an obstructive line without being much punished for it. To begin with, studies show that voters are more likely to hold politicians accountable for economic conditions when there’s “clarity of responsibility”—and responsibility for the economy now belongs to Obama and the Democrats. The recession started long before Obama took office. But, from a voter’s perspective, he had two years with sizable majorities in Congress to do something about it. While the 2009 stimulus plan succeeded in making the recession less awful than it might have been, you rarely get credit in politics for what didn’t happen. More important, in launching the plan, the President effectively took responsibility for the result. If you try to fix it, it’s yours. The Republicans were out of power for two years, and now control only one house of Congress. They can dodge blame, since they’ve had little chance of enacting anything. Coöperating on a bill would make it harder for them to disclaim responsibility for a weak economy at election time. They need to do enough to seem as if they cared about unemployment but not so much that they get blamed for it.
David Brooks haz a sad face:
This wasn’t a speech to get something done. This was the sort of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it. The result is that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.
Yes, I’m a sap. I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around.
But remember, I’m a sap. The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too. The president was stung by the liberal charge that he was outmaneuvered during the debt-ceiling fight. So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach.