The Obama $3.7 trillion budget proposal says to the nation “I don’t know what to do, so let’s just keep borrowing and spending and worry about it another day”.
But that is not leadership. That is a refusal to lead. We need a President that is not afraid to put his butt on the line and lead the nation, with new ideas and tuff negotiations.
On the other hand, the Tea Party leaders seem to refuse to step away from the negotiating table and eager to face the reality of our financial challenges.
The Liberal Democrats that support Obama and his spending agenda seem to be talking a good talk against the Tea Party agenda to cut costs, yet they realize that without the cuts that they are unwilling to make, they cannot continue their agenda.
Obama and supporters are double-minded, unable to lead for fear they will lose support from labor unions, yet hopeful that the Tea Party Republicans are successful so that they can continue spending. Without money to spend, there is no purpose for a big spender.
Obama seems to believe that he is more likely to get re-elected if he stays out of the budget cutting, while hoping the media will give him enough credit for the weak economic grows and that the public will turn to him out of anger for the Tea Party budget cuts that he had nothing to do with.
Obama seems more willing to gamble his political future on public anger against the very leadership that is critical to turn the nation around, then he is to find the courage to lead the nation himself.
No President has ever become famous for refusing to lead the nation and I don’t think Obama is going to be the first.
If Obama did what the nation needs him to do and led the nation out of this financial recession, we wouldn’t need the Tea Party to do it. His refusal to lead the nation has created the leadership void that the Tea Party is fulfilling.