HW Bush made a pretty amazing decision to raise taxes in the face of his promise not to. That was the absolutely the right move and a vital move for the country - but it in no way aided his own political standing or his re-election campaign. It did exactly the opposite and outside of Gulf War I, it was arguably the biggest decision he made in his Presidency. Obama hasn't been in office long enough to be tested in that same way, but he's promised to take on a number of issues that he could very easily ignore to his own political benefit - the test for him is whether he'll be able to follow through or not.
I distinctly recall during the debates Obama mentioning that amending the bankruptcy code to allow home mortgage modification being a top priority. When the bill was in the Senate, the White House was mum and the bill failed. Supporters of the bill were very disappointed that Obama thought it was very important during the campaign but not later.
I'm not suggesting he, or any President, will ever live up to every promise they make or goal they have during a campaign. I'm just suggesting that there are political leaders out there with a sufficient balance of integrity and intelligence to lead well.
This same opinion came to me last week. That intelligent, caring, well meaning people probably do more rewarding work like run hospitals and food drives. And the slimeballs are just some fake political rhetoric away from getting themselves into a powerful role in office. Thats the small hope of "community organizer" Obama I have. But I'll be cautiously optimistic.
The culture of greed and its celebration for the last 30 years has been a big part of it. The early 1900s up until the Depression also had its share of political scandals that were fairly common for that period. I think it isn't a matter of initial qualifications or competency as long as the public servant is for the greater interest. They use that drive to become better despite their mistakes or weaknesses.
Of course they will not live up to every promise. It seems odd to me that Obama would go so far as to call the modification legislation a top priority and then totally abandon it when the time came to pass it. What changed? Among other things, Obama put into place a package that would give lienholders $75 billion of taxpayer money to attempt to entice them into voluntarily doing loan mods. The Making Home Affordable initiative has been a failure to this point. You have to have a good credit score in order to qualify for a loan mod under that program. The problem is that if you are facing foreclosure, your credit has taken a pretty solid ding already. There are a lot of people that will not get relief that otherwise could have made the payments under a modified loan. As I kick my soapbox back under the desk, I tie this all up by saying that a provision that was important to Obama during the campaign ceased being important because the political winds shifted. That is not a good feeling.
If you actually read the original article, they are making fun of the GOP for putting out the 350 number largely because "this proposal is not going to get anywhere in congress." So because their cuts are things the Dems are not going to vote for, it is "fuzzy math" and the savings are imaginary. That excuse accounts for 317 billion dollars of the proposed savings.
Except the reason it wasn't going to get any in Congress is because it had no specific policy solutions: But the GOP doesn't even bother to specify what programs would get cut. So a "real budget cut" apparently means promising to spend less in the future and not saying how you would do it. The last time the GOP proposed this kind of fuzzy thinking, they were ridiculed by reporters. This proposal is not going to get anywhere in congress, so subtract $317 billion from the GOP number.
Just curious but what politicians from the past would you point out as different from the current breed?
Its sad that "Politician" has become a dirty word. I've met a lot of people who have gone into politics and while a few have been out to enrich themselves most seem like good people.
True. Most of the people I've worked with who were career politicians really did get involved and into it because they genuinely cared about issues, and working in a way they felt would improve government.
All people who gripe continuously about how all politicians suck have most probably never had a shred of power, management, or leadership experience. The compromises one must make, just to keep an organization functioning, and the number of fires one must put out, just constantly, are the biggest reality check I could have ever imagined.
That is true on any level. The stories I heard from my father about the politics and general BS that went on at his college would astonish those who believe a university is simply a citadel of learning. He was a department chair and had endless political and personality crap to deal with, from "upstairs" as well as below him. There are times tenure is a b****, although I honor it.
