One by Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi explains that "Obama's JOBS act couldn't suck worse." It's a good piece, but it could and does suck worse. Taibbi, who wrote an excellent postmortem of the mortgage securities meltdown of 2008 hasn't yet pieced together the full dimension of the rush to entrepreneurialism. But it's good that he isn't snookered into believing, as so many are, that there's a difference between tech financiers and the ones who caused the meltdown.
Where the previous meltdown caught financiers using our homes as chips in a Ponzi scheme, Taibbi hasn't yet figured out (apparently) that this time around they're gambling with the future of a generation of our best and brightest. When the bubble bursts it's going to leave a lot of young people with wrecked lives. It'll make a great book, but it would be even better if we could put the brakes on some of the euphoria before the bubble grows too big. Yeah lots of luck with that, I guess.
So Obama is a bad man, a political product, like Nike or Apple. He wants to get re-elected, so he does what the big money people ask him to. But as a product, he makes an interesting case study.
The other article says he's going to use the Buffet Rule as a campaign issue. Good for him. We need to even out the taxes. Rich people don't pay their fair share.
A man in a crowd at an election rally in 1948 yelled: Give em hell Harry!
Then the President said something that has forever endeared him to the great myth of American individualism.
PS: This letter-writer to the NYT had the same idea.