It's incoherent because he argues that the pork bill must be rushed into law quickly to avert an economic "catastrophe" (so much for the politics of hope). At the same time, his appeal notes that the bill is about much, much more than "short term" fixes (which is, actually, what a "stimulus" bill is supposed to be -- something that helps sooner, rather than later).
Instead, he argues, the bill is "a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education." But if that's the case, and we're really dealing with long term strategic issues, shouldn't there be time for discussion and debate, rather than rushing pell-mell to pass this law?
The piece is misleading because he suggests that GOP critics of the plan espouse the "notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems." It should be noted that most of the GOP remains open to some spending; they just believe there should be a place for tax cuts, as well -- an idea that's anathema to a Democratic Party that's intent on using an economic crisis to solidify their hold over America's free economy.
President Obama notes that when Americans went to the polls last November, they "voted resoundingly for change." Somehow, I doubt that the kind of "change" they had in mind was a pork bill that, as Steven Sprueill and Kevin Williamson note at National Review, contains a host of outrages.
Does President Obama really think economic calamity will ensue if, say, the Smithsonian doesn't get its $150 million, and the $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities" (read: ACORN) is set aside? Will the sky fall if the government forgoes funding the manufacturing of advanced batteries to the tune of $1 billion? Or if there isn't a $600 million grant to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids?
Please. Don't spit on Americans' legs and tell us it's raining, Mr. President. Do we look that stupid?