Obama never quite squared his accusations that “millionaires and billionaires” had not paid their fair share with his own obvious enjoyment of the perks of “corporate jet owners,” “fat cat bankers,” and Las Vegas junketeers
(1) No squaring was required: it is entirely consistent for a person to call for higher taxes on the rich while simultaneously enjoying the many privileges of wealth; in fact, since Obama certainly knew the taxes would impact his own wealth, the act is most plausibly interpreted as magnanimous (or, as being more concerned with sociotropic matters than self interest).
(2) Even if squaring was required and never achieved, it wouldn't affect the underlying argument for more progressive taxation (I don't know whether I agree with it or not). To insist otherwise is to insist that arguments are only as valid as the personalities of the people presenting them are pure, an obvious logical fallacy. That doesn't mean there is never value in pointing out hypocrisy (which Obama's actions don't count as; see (1)); rather, it means that this action is independent of evaluating arguments for specific policies.
Now, that paradox has continued right off the bat in the second term. In the State of the Union, Obama once more went after “the few” and “the wealthiest and the most powerful,” whom he blasted as the “well-off and the well-connected” and the “billionaires with high-powered accountants.”
Like clockwork, the president then jetted to West Palm Beach for yet another golfing vacation at one of the nation’s priciest courses, replete with lessons from a $1,000-an-hour golf pro to improve the presidential putting.
The rest of the first family jetted off on their own skiing vacation to elite Aspen, Colo., where nobody accepts that at some point they’ve already “made enough money.”
This is all covered under (1) above.
Meanwhile, below the stratosphere, unemployment rose to 7.9 percent for January — the 49th consecutive month it has been 7.8 percent or higher.
(3) Yes, though of course the U-6 value is what's really relevant. Funnily enough, U-6 remained unchanged, and is not mentioned by this author. George, why do you think a conservative columnist who gets published at places that harped on the U-6 rate when it remained unchanged when U-3 declined (e.g., The National Review) is now using U-3 when it goes up and U-6 remains unchanged, even though U-6 is the better indicator? Any ideas?
(4) The data isn't homogeneous in projecting a bleak year: in sketching a negative image via the use of only three cherry-picked variables among hundreds, the author makes the nature of his intentions clear (namely, that they aren't to describe reality as it really is; rather, select aspects of reality are to be utilized to convey a very specific, emotional and probably partisan message).
To demonstrate that this is so, here is some countervailing data: house prices (a significant portion of consumer wealth) are up 6.8% from last year; economists project 2% growth even with sequestration and high gas prices; inflation is a mere 1.6%; home purchases are at their highest since June 2008; the construction industry has picked up ~100k jobs in the last few months; consumer confidence has risen for the first time in several months; and bank lending has increased. These are especially pertinent to the American economy since all of our previous major recoveries have been undergirded by growth in construction/housing.
2. Besides this, it isn't clear what Obama can do differently to generate more jobs; unless a clear alternative with a demonstrably superior impact on job creation is proposed, criticism of the Obama Administration's actions isn't especially relevant. Ought implies can, meaning that it isn't rational to insist that Obama
ought to do a better job coaxing the American economy into generating more jobs unless it is clear that he
can, a state of affairs which must be demonstrated, not merely asserted out of thin air.
3. The author cites USG debt issuance. Yet current debt issuance results in a net profit for the USG (and thus a better financial situation, however minimally improved) as evinced by the negative real yield curves on Treasuries (
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield). Anyone in favor of the USG improving its fiscal lot in an attempt to pay down debt ought to be in favor of such issuance since it is free money.
4. The author mentions gas prices, apparently implying in this context that Obama can do something to reduce their price. But this implicatum is blatantly false: gas prices are determined globally, seeing as they are mostly determined by oil prices and oil is a global commodity. Here's a rudimentary analysis I posted here sometime in 2012; the specific prices aren't as relevant as the general point about price determination:
"The price of oil is the primary determinant of gas prices (65 cents for every dollar spent on gas). As of 2011, the US produces about 7.8 million bpd of oil, or 8.9% of the worldwide total. Thus, even in an utterly miraculous scenario that is humanly impossible in which a president instantly doubled US oil production -- something approving the Keystone XL pipeline and all the rest would not come remotely close to doing -- the price of oil (which, for simplicity's sake we are assuming is determined solely by supply and demand, something that isn't quite true) would shift from $90.71 a barrel to $82.64 a barrel. This in turn would mean the US average gas price would go from $3.533 a gallon to ... wait for it ... $3.33 a gallon."(5) I'm not going to argue in defense of any of these other assholes, especially not that slimy kneegar Jackson.
I'm looking forward to your well-reasoned response(s) to this post that you yourself formulate, and not regurgitations of others' half-baked thought as in the OP. Thank you and God Bless America.