Uneasy Lies The Head That Wears The Crown

There's an old saying in politics: he who wields the knife shall never wear the crown. Note that it says 'he' and not 'she'.

With President Obama once again demonstrating spectacular leadership by leaving social security out of the equation and drawing lines in sand and threatening vetos of whatever the Super-Committee comes up with if it doesn't include a healthy dose of tax hikes the madness continues unabated in Washington.

First of all: let's work on the little problem of framing. Whenever I hear about people paying their 'fair share' it makes me grind my teeth. Who decides what constitutes a 'fair share'? Why do they get to decide what constitutes a 'fair share' for me? What gives them that right? They don't know me-- you see where this leads, kids? Nowhere good. It makes people crazy.

But how about this: currently, the majority of Americans pay no tax at all. None whatsoever- the majority of people who file income tax get refunds- so how about instead of 'fair shares' for people, how about we just say: 'our tax code is pretty effed up. How about we have one where everybody chips in something.'

That's an entirely more reasonably proposition, but you have to be able to frame it correctly, which this administration seems incapable of doing. And I'm sorry, but full-fledged entitlement reform needs to happen right now. How are Baby Boomers going to feel when you either have to cut their benefits or raise their taxes to pay for Social Security at some point in the future? I'm betting they won't be happy- it's the height of irresponsible leadership not to have a plan and proclaim it loudly, vocally and sell it to the American people.

But the administration doesn't seem interested in that either.

Yes, he who wields the knife shall never wear the crown, but when things like this sppear in the Chicago Tribune (the President's hometown newspaper), you've got to start wondering what Hillary Clinton might be thinking. And how long it might take before someone persuades her, for the good of her party to mount a challenge to the President. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely, I think- Clinton won't run unless she can win and if she can't successfully kneecap the President, then she's done, finito, curtains, over. You can't come back from that.

(For the record, kids: I would be more than happy to support Mrs. Clinton in 2012. The Republicans are frustrating me with their hypocritical inconsistencies. You can't rail against government and then shove a syringe full of Gardasil into the ass of every 12 year old girl in the country. You can't rail against government and demand that it interfere in the basic definitions of what constitutes a family or a marriage or personal choices of any kind. Only Ron Paul has any consistency. Which is why I'll probably support him in the caucuses. But in a general? Not sure yet.)