Ramblings and loose rocks in my head, before I begin a week’s vacation…
-- Polling released today shows that President Barack Obama’s support is continuing to drop in Michigan, meaning he could have real trouble in 2012 in a state where he had rock solid support in 2008.
Of 600 likely voters in Michigan, three quarters think the country is on the wrong track, compared to 62 percent just last month. Moreover, Obama’s job approval slipped from 39 percent to 34 percent in just a month’s time.
What’s likely of more concern to Obama is that very few economists are predicting major gains in employment over the next year. That makes Obama's re-election bid much more dicey.
-- What is perhaps of greater concern to many voters is who will take Obama’s place. Right now, the Republican field has three top contenders;
-- Michelle Bachmann, a Tea Party champion who apparently wants to retract federal spending to what it was in the year 1787, without adjusting for inflation. (No, I don't believe she's "crazy-eyed." But some of what she says is plain nutty.)
-- Rick Perry, a Tea Party champion, who tries to look thoughtful in flannel with one leg propped on a bale of hay, while he calls on Obama for a moratorium on government regulations, gives creationism the same weight as evolution, and quietly threatens Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke with a Texan mob if he chooses to print U.S. currency.
-- Mitt Romney, who has fled so far from his own progressive (and successful) record as Massachusetts governor that his picture is now in Webster’s next to the term “hollow man.”
One hopes more Republicans will enter the race….
--- Even after the debt ceiling crisis debacle, the rhetoric over slashing federal spending to the raw bone has not subsided. I’ve always thought (along with many economists) that some level of deficit financing of government programs was fine during a time of recession. But I’ll concede the point that the federal debt is too high, and the government should either restore late 1990s taxing levels and/or cut federal spending.
One thing I’ve never understood is the insistence by conservatives the federal government’s budget should be treated like a family budget. I’m not sure I buy into that; the fed budget is not like a family budget; like a real family in financial crisis, the feds can’t sell their house and move to a trailer park across town.
But OK, let’s adopt that conservative analogy of the family budget. What would a real father or mother do if their household was suddenly strapped with enormous debt, and they were committed to making good on that debt?
Sure, they'd have to cut out luxury purchases (not food or healthcare, one hopes). Most likely, spending cuts alone would not put much of a dent in the enormous debt. Without major assets, the family’s options would be limited.
Common sense says that either Mom or Dad, or both, would have to get a second job to make more money.
Or in other words, they’d have to get more revenue.
So thanks, conservatives, for that analogy. You’ve convinced me! I now see the need for higher taxes.
See ya in a week……
