Last week, The Weekly Standard pointed out a hilarious, yet wholly sad correction in the New York Times' story of March 30th about Obama's new energy policy. Obama, as you know, laid out a “new” energy policy in a speech at Georgetown University.
Turns out, it wasn’t so new.
The Times wrote:
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: March 30, 2011
A previous version of this article misstated how many of the president's proposals to reduce the country's reliance on imported oil were new in his speech on Wednesday. None of them were, not one of them. [Emphasis added]
I have no idea how many new ideas the Times first credited to Obama, but I'm certainly glad that even the New York Times is starting to understand that Obama is the guy who we said he was.
On the eve of the budget speech that CNN hopes will be a defining moment in the Obama presidency- gosh, let’s hope not- we already know that Obama’s speech will contain nothing new.
“If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago,” said Obama senior advisor David Plouffe making the weekend TV circuit, “they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.”
Yes: That’s all the administration has.
Blame the rich.
It’s an old, tired game that doesn’t work. We proved that in the late 1960s and 1970s.
So why stop there? Maybe Obama can resurrect ideas that didn’t work in the first half of the 20th century too?
Rep. Jan Shakowsky, (D-IL), the most far left member of Congress, has been walking point for just such a “tax-the-rich” bill as Obama will lay out on Wednesday. She calls it the “Fairness in Taxation Act.”