Absence of Balance

The President insists on a ‘balanced approach’. We as a people interpret and understand that insistence in different ways. To those who pay little attention it is about image, celebrity and identity. To others, it is pure ideology, left and right. On the Left, feel good social justice on the Right code for creeping income redistribution, they are both correct in their own way. There is also an informed view, tending toward the middle and weakly ideological; willing to encourage and accept a truly balanced ‘balanced approach’. The natural coalition is from the right to the middle.

The Right/Middle sees the need for fundamental financial reforms and will accept a bit of personal pain in the process if true reform is in the offing: material spending cuts, tax reform and the easily identifiable reforms that will put entitlements into the 50 year window of solvency. They realize that if 50% of us have no skin in the game in terms of both taxing and spending, no stake in accountability, our financial situation begins to look like an insolvable problem.

There have been two specific proposals for a ‘balanced approach’. We have Paul Ryan’s plan which is DOA in the Senate and Simpson/Boles. Simpson/Boles is the best we’ve seen in terms of a ‘balanced approach’; a real plan served up on a silver platter. Everyone hated part of it; perfect! Even those who voted against it saw merit in substantial portions of it.

Simpson/Boles required Presidential leadership as the remaining key ingredient. One has to wonder what the President could have accomplished if we were ‘for’ something that was acceptable to a majority of the members of the commission? The absence of acceptance in the White House is at the core of the remaining financial ‘crises’ that we’ve faced: fiscal cliffs, credit downgrades, higher taxes absent reform, growing deficits and downward tumbles.

Simpson/Boles would have pushed the tipping point far into the future. The White House wanted nothing to do with it and that set the context for everything that has happened since. It was a clear message to all.

Imagine the President’s rhetorical skills aimed at both the Left and the Right in support of Simpson/Boles; 70% approval ratings, legacy secured. The President and his people don’t see it that way!

Were the President in full throated support for common sense, basic reforms he could have led us to a place where we could have proven to ourselves that we’re not ‘broken’. There could have been a sense that we are still capable of accomplishment and true balanced approaches. We could have enjoyed a renewed sense of the power of unity. Instead we’ve been led to a reinforced sense of perpetual dysfunction and class warfare. Unity of purpose is, for most leaders, the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail remains hidden!

The demand for a ‘balanced approach’ is belied by behavior. What is demanded and what is supported do not meet in the middle.

  • Bill Hedges

    Blind eyes CAN ALWAYS make tax cut for rich look _scan·dal·ous_. There lies the raise eye-brows towards Republicans. Make matters worse EVERY SINGLE CBO *** ESTIMATE *** will show loss of revenue concerning tax cut for rich. While TAX INCREASES show increase in revenue. In the real numbers ledger TAX CUTS increase revenue & TAX HIKES reduce revenue. TRUE for every single tax cut for rich. Is a fallacy what demos preach.

    A all CBO real numbers link, tells the demos, as told to Germans by General Anthony Clement McAuliffe… “NUTS”!!!

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy”


    WAS demos who passed PAY AS YOU GO under buma. Forgotten as quickly as signed by bum. When increases was offset by cuts, most of the cuts were far off in future so they could be recalled. As Speaker pointed out yesterday.

    What significant $$$ cuts has the President and demos come up with ? How many of the bills passed in House has Senate reviewed, voted on, or rewrote and sent back to House ? NO demo attempt to compromise.

    In front of a media mike buma wants BALANCE. GOOD FAITH is more than saying it on the 6 O’clock news. Must perform THE DEED…

  • Bob

    “Democrats like to pretend that every last penny of government spending is wise,benevolent and essential.My guess is that perhaps 15% of discretionary spending meets all three of those criteria,but we’ll never know because government programs are rarely evaluated for effectiveness,efficiency or necessity.According to the Government Accountability Office,the government runs 50 different programs for the homeless across eight agencies,23 programs for housing aid through four agencies,26 programs for food and nutrition aid through six agencies,27 programs on teen pregnancy,130 programs for at risk youth, 10 agencies to promote exports, and 342 programs for economic development.The federal government run 47 different job training programs at a cost to the taxpayers of $18 Billion annually.The GAO found that “only 5 of those 47 programs…..examined had done detailed impact studies ” and that among those “the effect of participation were not consistent across programs,with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small,inconclusive,or restricted to short term impacts.”

    From an article entitled “Gullible Nation” by Mona Charen (see below)


    For those who remember the same dire predictions of people sleeping in the streets and having to eat out of trash cans were made back in 1996 when the “Welfare Reform Act of 1996” was being debated….NO the proper word should be demonized.It never happened!

  • Bob


    Ex-Sec.of Labor Robert Reich blames the “Sequestration Tea Party Conspiracy” for trying to overthrow the government with it’s FEAR AND SMEAR TACTICS.Hmmm it seems we are through the looking glass Alice!