Must Read Op-Eds for September 14, 2011

Updated
 

MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA  BY MAUREEN DOWD
NEW YORK TIMES
[Jacqueline Kennedy] said she considered her main job to be distracting and soothing her husband … she did not see herself as an Eleanor Roosevelt, wanting to pester him about some pressing political matter. “I remember I said it in an interview once,” she recalled, “… ‘Where do you get your opinions?’ And I said, ‘I get all my opinions from my husband.’ Which is true. How could I have any political opinions, you know? His were going to be the best. And I could never conceive of not voting for whoever my husband was for. But the young Mrs. Kennedy underestimated herself in those dark days long ago. She had plenty of opinions of her own, tart and tantalizing.

IS IT WEIRD ENOUGH YET?  BY THOMAS FRIEDMAN
NEW YORK TIMES
We need revenue to balance the budget. We need sustainable clean-tech jobs. We need less dependence on Mideast oil. And we need to take steps to mitigate climate change — just in case Governor Perry is wrong. The easiest way to do all of this at once is with a gasoline tax or price on carbon. Would you rather cut Social Security and Medicare or pay a little more per gallon of gas and make the country stronger, safer and healthier? It still amazes me that our politicians have the courage to send our citizens to war but not to ask the public that question.

‘SUPERCOMMITTEE’? MORE THAN STUPOR COMMITTEE  BY DANA MILBANK
WASHINGTON POST
The chief congressional bean counter, highly regarded by both sides as a neutral referee, laid out the choices: If you want to keep entitlement programs the way they are, you’re going to need big tax increases and sharp cuts to everything else government does. If you want to keep taxes where they are, you’re going to need severe cuts to entitlement programs as well as to everything else. The answer should be obvious to reasonable people: all of the above. To prevent a ruinous rise in taxes or devastating cuts to Medicare and Social Security, there will need to be smaller tax increases and smaller entitlement cuts.

 

WHY OBAMA IS LOSING THE JEWISH VOTE  BY DAN SENOR
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Yet much as he might prefer to, Obama won’t be running against congressional Republicans. This is why Mitt Romney’s approach to Obama — casting him as a nice guy in over his head — could be so potent. Where Texas Gov. Rick Perry can be cutting about Obama, Romney takes more of the “poor schnook” stance. He’s not telling swing voters they were wrong to give Obama a shot — just that the president tried and failed. … s problem with Jewish voters is one of substance, not messaging.

 

A GOOD JOBS PROGRAM  BY EDITORIAL
NEW YORK TIMES
The largest part would raise some $400 billion over 10 years by capping the value of itemized deductions and other tax breaks at 28 percent. … The other parts … would raise money while making the code more fair: $41 billion by ending tax breaks for oil and gas companies; $18 billion by not letting private equity partners pay tax on most earnings at about the lowest rate in the code; and $3 billion by curbing breaks for corporate jets. Mr. Obama’s proposals, including the taxes to pay for them, could not be more urgent. There is a crater in the economy where the job market used to be.

 

A CLOUDY FORECAST FOR 2012  BY RUTH MARCUS
WASHINGTON POST
Yet much as he might prefer to, Obama won’t be running against congressional Republicans. This is why Mitt Romney’s approach to Obama — casting him as a nice guy in over his head — could be so potent. Where Texas Gov. Rick Perry can be cutting about Obama, Romney takes more of the “poor schnook” stance. He’s not telling swing voters they were wrong to give Obama a shot — just that the president tried and failed.

 




Morning Joe Must-Read Op-Eds and Morning Joe Must-Read Op-Eds

Must Read Op-Eds for September 14, 2011

Updated