Here's the full text.
Here's E.J. Dionne's analysis. Dionne liked several items in it: number one was this:
. . .without mentioning Rep. Paul Ryan by name, he called out Ryan’s truly reactionary budget proposal for what it is: an effort to slash government programs, in large part to preserve and expand tax cuts for the wealthy. “That’s not right,” he said, “and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m president.”I like that part too. Too much of the commentary from the talking heads and columnists has glided right past Ryan's goal of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, when anyone with a lick of common sense knows if those were to expire in 2012 some 40% of the deficit would disappear in 20 years.
So I guess I'm on board with the plan, at least as it stands. As Krugman says, it can't be the furthest left pole, though.
If this becomes the left pole, and the center is halfway between this and Ryan, then no — better to pursue the zero option of just doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts as a whole expire.Posted by Linkmeister at April 13, 2011 02:46 PM | TrackBack