Is America being sold a counterfeit Reaganomics financial plan labeled as the Obama "Buffett Rule?"
According to Obama, his misleadingly titled financial "rule" is the solution to his growing deficit money woes, which would enable him to keep on spending taxpayer money as he sees fit.
Kind of like printing money when you need it.
And Obama is even willing to call it the "Reagan Rule" if it means Americans will support it.
But Americans wisely listened to Reagan years ago when he said "our government has been spending more than it receives in tax revenues" and charging folks higher taxes is never the solution, regardless of which group of people it is in the country.
Instead, Reagan said "I believe the more responsible course, the fairest approach, is to get Federal spending under control."
Few would argue that he would certainly be right to not single out any one groupÂ—or that when it comes to controlling the government spending of runaway departments like the GSA, or the national debt for that matter, funding should definitely be cut.
But because it takes money to fund projects and programs Obama wants to see come alive, he's considering doing in the public sector (with American tax dollars) what he never would in his own family's budget: taking from his wife's medical bill account in order to fund paving a new driveway for the neighbor.
And since Pres. Obama likes to bring up Ronald Reagan in order to try and sell these financial political agendas, twisting the famous orator's words to fit his budget deficit goals rather than in the context in which they were spoken, it's only fair play to remind him what Reagan had to say about the Democrats in Congress years ago, which also happens to be something he would likely say about them now:
"The budget and other legislation now being considered by the Democratic Congress threatens to undo the progress that we've made over the last six years."
Unfortunately, we don't live in the period back then, when we enjoyed the financial fruits of Reagan's presidential labor. So we have zero prosperity to squander on yet another fluke tax and spend plan, allegedly to be buoyed up by a mere $50 billion increase from the "Buffett Rule."
Taxing the rich for the next 10 years isn't going to cut it, as Philly.com has already reported. America just doesn't have enough rich people to tax at 30 percent to give it the trillions it needs. Can't President Obama see that?
So what will be the Obama administration's explanation when that $50 billion is run through and the country is still trillions in debt, with no more rich people to pilfer? Who will pay for the programs then?
That's the kicker, as Obama will be long gone from office before that bill comes due, so he will get to ride off into the sunset (on Reagan's horse) while a new Reagan has to ride in to clean up the corral. That's if American's actually let him do it this time, of course.
She won't, will she?
President Obama may enjoy quoting Ronald Reagan, but you can bet your last dollar that Reagan would never have quoted Obama, especially when it comes to matters of financial responsibility.
America enjoyed greater financial prosperity and peace under the leadership of Ronald Reagan than they ever have under the Obama administration. Maybe that's why Obama is trying to make them think Reagan is still hereÂ—when it's only his words being used to champion a counterfeit "Reaganomics."