 |
| Protect our environment |
Loopholes and/or earmarks?
Closing loopholes or spend tax money on infrastructure projects aka pet projects? It's a dilemma. While both sends money to lawmakers, which would do more harm to taxpayers? Earmarks will directly fatten the cats while loopholes will please the rich donors. Let's say, the citizens can be benefited more or less from public projects while loopholes only make the corporates and the rich more arrogant.
President Obama vow to the excited audience that he will never sacrifice the middle class. "We will bring back jobs", he said. Through education, by funding innovation he said, we will secure the jobs here in the States. Does that mean more public spending? The race to the bottom? Is he talking about Keynesian economy by hiring cops?
The President laughed it off the efforts on the Republican side against the healthcare reform. If businesses can wait, the uninsured individuals can wait to get insured, they argue. It rather is a funny argument indeed. The uninsured individual may get sick at any time, and they are not covered. Will they go bankrupt? The waiver not to be covered is not a blessing. It rather is a temptation to go easy with the wishful thinking.
While his focus on people never ceased to amaze me, the supposed talk on economy sounded more on helping people than the economy itself. President Obama emphasized that the Administration succeeded in reducing the deficit. While praising the effort, the President did not offer any further plan to balance the budget still in red.
We would welcome the ideas from Republicans, President Obama said. If they claim they can make the economy better, show us how, he challenged. The phony scandals, he said, and the Congress turned its eyes from the middle class. Probably so. The lawmakers vote as paid. They conspired to get paid by conjecturing crises. The media got billions of dollars from the last election by making the race look a close one. As it turns out, it was a overwhelming win for the President.