Monday, February 8, 2010

R.J.Samuelson- Obama's Fed budget lacks clarity!

A clear and precise article from Robert J. Samuelson (no relation to the other famous Samuelson).
"In all the recent reports, speeches and news conferences concerning the federal budget outlook -- including the administration's proposed budget for 2011 -- hardly anyone has posed these crucial questions: What should the federal government do and why; and who should pay?"
Its about the candor gap and how the US budget, lacks clarity and clear purpose on initiatives and issues.

I think president Obama, spent a great deal to identify some of the initiatives in his state of the union address a few weeks back. He said that there would be definite changes in spending in education and, particularly, more pell grants will be dished out as well as an increased focus on early childhood development.

I don't think that we can talk about the returns to scale of such investments. But, education, is a clear best bet if we are taking into consideration the information age as well a the new, knowledge based global community.

Allot of other things were a little scant. He is pushing health care reform, but not so much the real or expected inflated price of health care. Definitely, there are going to be tax increases and budget cuts. Defense spending was slated to be cut, from what I remember.

While Samuelson makes a sound point, while most people missed it as it should be obvious, the lack of financial literacy and a lack of macro-economic principles, within the public main, especially when we take into consideration all of the other things going around- terrorism and the wave of employment news- especially the ad campaigns, meant more to confuse rather than illuminate the American people, we have to take what we can get unless we have a real grassroots movement, which seeks to educate the people on these matters, rather than hype them up for their attentional and voting block power.
"We can no longer just tinker. We need to ask whether government spending serves genuine public purposes or merely benefits favored constituencies."
Such idealism, while true, is a little cute-- sounds like the same old Federal Government, to me.
Post a Comment