Irresponible tax, Iraq pledges by Obama, Clinton

David Brooks:

...

... Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.

Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.

The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.

...

On the tax pledge, I think the Democrats are practicing the politics of fraud. They know they are going to raise taxes on people earning less that $200,000. It is clear that they are going to do that by taking away some of the exemptions that were built into the Bush tax cuts. One of the tricks Democrats have been trying to play on the voters is the claim by letting the tax cuts expire that is not a tax increase. Anyone paying more would disagree, but it will be too late after the con is elected.

As for Iraq, I think they do intend to be insane. The left in this country wants Iraq to be a disaster and they will do whatever they can to make it happen and pulling the troops out before Iraq is ready is the best way to do it. It is not just a lack of maturity. It is a planned disaster which they intend to blame on Bush. That is why Obama focuses more on the question of why we went in than on solving the current problem.