One thing I’m comfortable with on the campaign front is inspiring a sense of urgency. But, big shock, it seems the Democrats are in no hurry to come up with a comprehensive plan of their own on the most critical (and arguably urgent) issues. But thank God the Brookings Institution feels that a “step-by-step, deliberative approach” is wise.
So what we’re saying is that they didn’t have a plan for success in Iraq either, and they’re just going to wait for Lee Hamilton and James Baker III to save them while they rush to raise the minimum wage, and get after them Big-Oil companies. Implementing the 9/11 commission? So would that include keeping continuity in key intelligence commitees, or is that only if those members are close personal friends of Nancy’s?
Speaking of Brookings, check out their budget presentation for the “fiscal wake-up tour”. My personal favorite line is in the conclusion where Brookings calls for (get this):
“Public Willingness to forgo tax cuts or accept spending cutbacks.”
Two HUGE things wrong with this:
1) “Forgoing tax cuts” is a euphemism for “accepting tax hikes.”
2) “Accepting spending cutbacks” assumes that all spending is good. How absolutely ridiculous.
How about “bureaucratic willingness to accept the public’s desire for spending cuts instead of tax hikes.” or “Congress’ willingness to give up their little fiefdoms in the name of fiscal responsibility” ?