Down the Tubes with Dubya

[MattTheSkywalker]

A slump in the economy was an opportunity to push a tax cut that provided very little stimulus in the short run, but will place huge demands on the budget in 2010.

The role of the president in causing an economic U-turn is often overstated by adversaries of that President. Every politician is guilty of "please them now, deal with it later" policy-making. It's how you get (re) elected. The budget in 2010, Social Security in 2034, and suddenly both parties are looking onto spending several hundred billion for a prescription drug benefit. Why>? The 2002 elections; both houses are close, and the 2004 election, which will be a close one.

No one apparently remembers that when Congress enacted Medicare, the cost of treatment skyrocketed: doctors, medicines, etc., through the roof. The burden on teh taxpayers increased proportionally. It will happen again if this is not thought through. No one from either party cares, because these are not immediate problems.

An electricity shortage in California was an opportunity to push for drilling in Alaska, which would have produced no electricity and hardly any oil until 2013 or so.

That's just shitty journalism. There is no conncetion between the CA power outages and the Alaska push, further, on what grounds does the author assume that is will take 11 years to generate results? That's just biased reporting. Further, the author criticizes Bush for doing something that will be adverse in 2010 (tax cut), and again for doing something that is beneficial in the same time frame. I treat this entire paragraph as proof that journalism is the undergrad major of many low-watt bulbs in college.

An attack by lightly armed terrorist infiltrators was an opportunity to push for lots of heavy weapons and a missile defense system, just in case Al Qaeda makes a frontal assault with tank divisions or fires an ICBM next time.

While 9-11 strengthened the call for a missile shield, it did not create it. It was a Reagan fantasy. I can't argue for a missile shield, but to Bush's credit, spending for Special Ops troops (the ones that will find Al Qaeda) has increased dramatically.

His son's advisers don't have that problem: they have a powerful vision for America's future. In that future, we have recently learned, the occupant of the White House will have the right to imprison indefinitely anyone he chooses, including U.S. citizens, without any judicial process or review. But they are rather less interested in the reality thing.

This is a lot of hyperbole that I can only guess relates to Jose Padilla. Padilla was a lifetime street thug, and while the infringement of the rights of one person is unacceptable if we are to be the true "free society", I am hard-pressed to believe that the potential infringement on the rights of one Jose Padilla has so incensed Mr. Krugman that he must rail against this "injustice".

Having said that, one should heed the words of Julius Caesar in his "beware of him that bangs the drums of patriotisim speech" as well as Ben Franklin's indictment of "he that compromises his liberty for security." The slippery-slope needs to be cut off, and terrorism is a great "patriot-drum".

For the distinctive feature of all the programs the administration has pushed in response to real problems is that they do little or nothing to address those problems. Problems are there to be used to pursue the vision. And a problem that won't serve that purpose, whether it's the collapse of confidence in corporate governance or the chaos in the Middle East, is treated as an annoyance to be ignored if possible, or at best addressed with purely cosmetic measures. Clearly, George W. Bush's people believe that real-world problems will solve themselves, or at least won't make the evening news, because by pure coincidence they will be pre-empted by terror alerts.

Interesting that this seeming left-leaner Krugman would criticize Bush for doing nothing about "real problems". As I said before, this is politics as usual. Doubt it? Under Clinton, there were three major terror attacks attributable to Osama bin Laden, and the response was largely to take actions that did not address the problem. US politics is big on "ignore and it goes away" or "push it off 10 years...I'm out in 8." Left or right it is the same. Clinton figured that the terror problem would solve itself, or at least be pre-empted by news about the booming Internet economy. Bush is doing the exact opposite. Opposite, but not different. Krugman should spend his effrots criticizing the sandbox, not the kids playing in it.

But real problems, if not dealt with, have a way of festering. In the last few weeks, a whole series of problems seem to have come to a head.

That's right they do. 9/11 was an example fo the terror problem festering. This Krugman is a fool.

Yesterday's speech notwithstanding, Middle East policy is obviously adrift. The dollar and the stock market are plunging, threatening an already shaky economic recovery. Amtrak has been pushed to the edge of shutdown, because it couldn't get the administration's attention. And the federal government itself is about to run out of money, because House Republicans are unwilling to face reality and increase the federal debt limit. (This avoidance thing seems to be contagious.)

Middle East policy has been adrift since....I don't know, the Crusades? The economy is going to tank - it's deflation, not contraction. For you journalism majors out there, rudimentary economics: deflation is when prices continue to drop. it is devastating because no one spends money, since they think "it will be cheaper in six months anyway". Deflation feeds itself - this is known as the deflationary sprial and it caused the Great Depression. Hang on for a bumpy economic ride, and don't think that the White House can fix it, whoever occupies.

So now would be a good time to do what the White House always urges its critics to do — put partisanship aside. Will Mr. Bush be willing to set aside, even for a day or two, his drive to consolidate his political base, and actually do something that wasn't part of his preconceived agenda? Oh, never mind.

Will any politician? Nope.

I think that most commentators missed the point of the story about Mr. Bush's commencement speech at Ohio State, the one his aide said drew on the thinking of Emily Dickinson, Pope John Paul II, Aristotle and Cicero, among others. Of course the aide's remarks were silly — but they gave us an indication of the level of sycophancy that Mr. Bush apparently believes to be his due. Next thing you know we'll be told that Mr. Bush is also a master calligrapher, and routinely swims across the Yangtze River. And nobody will dare laugh: just before Mr. Bush gave his actual, Aristotle-free speech, students at Ohio State were threatened with expulsion and arrest if they heckled him.

You mean people kiss the President's ass? No shit?! Ther guy who can pick up the phone and get anything in the world has sychopantic aides? A shocker?! what next? And what does this have to do with anything? Why blame Bush for teh policies of Ohio State?

It's interesting to note that the planned Department of Homeland Security, while of dubious effectiveness in its announced purpose, will be protected against future Colleen Rowleys: the new department will be exempted from both whistle-blower protection and the Freedom of Information Act.

To rein in the departments in fed-land will require a President with the courage and leadership ability unseen since maybe Lincoln. It is a mess and I don't know what it will take to get it under control. While it is dubious this new venture will succeed, it is criticism of Bush for being average.

But back to the festering problems: on the economic side, this is starting to look like the most dangerous patch for the nation and the world since the summer of 1998. Back then, luckily, our economic policy was run by smart people who were prepared to learn from their mistakes. Can you say the same about this administration?

Ahh the good old days, 1998...when the economic policymaking body called the Federal Reserve was controlled by Alan Greenspan. And who do we have now? Why, it's Alan Greenspan! The problem in the late 90's was contraction after the Internet explosion. It's deflation now, and the typical solutions (lowering interest rates) are not helping. Perhaps Mr. Greenspan has not yet learned from those mistakes.

As I've noted before, the Bush administration has an infallibility complex: it never, ever, admits making a mistake. And that kind of arrogance tends, eventually, to bring disaster. You can read all about it in Aristotle.

No politican admits a mistake. Remember I did not have sex...now I need to go back to work for the American people ?

Was that page perforated? Because I am low on toilet paper. Is Krugman an intern? That sounded more like college newspaper editorializing than an attempt at jourmalism.


Matt

 

[musclebrains]

One notation:

The Homeland Security agency was actually proposed by a bipartisan committee appointed by Clinton three years before 9/11. (The committee was the US Commission on National SEcurity/21st Century). Clinton had expressed his support of the preliminary finding to create such an agency.

However, Dubya, to whom the final report was given after he was appointed President, rejected it. Now, of course, he acts as if it was his idea. And the media are too amnesiac and lazy to recall the interesting work of the committee whose members included everyone from Gary Hart to Andrew Young and Newt Gingrich -- an ideologically mixed group.

To address some of Matt's points -- those that aren't simple dismissals:

Krugman would certainly agree that the Calif. energy crisis and the Alaska drilling are unrelated. You had better tell that to the Administration which used anxiety over the energy crisis to campaign for opening Alaska. The proposed inflations in the defense budget have no logical relationship to the disastrously successful handiwork of a handful of terrorists, but, guess what, the administration has made it appear so. Krugman's assertion is shitty journalism if you ignore politics at your convenience.

The administration has tried to hold numerous people without charges -- not Padilla alone -- and many have been released thanks to the actions of some courageous federal judges. The Padilla affair is also an incredibly inflated political diversion. Mr. Padilla had $10,000 and no plan and no sources. There is NO evidence against him other than hearsay. He was arrested well over a month before the public announcement of his alleged dirty bomb plan. I guess you think it's coincidence that, after weeks, the feds announced this just as the FBI was under attack for its shoddy work.

You confuse editorializing with journalism. Just as your own response to the editorial column it is colored with irrelevancies -- "all politicians lie" -- an editorial is (unlike you own claim to factuality) calculated as provocation. Indeed, you didn't dispute any of the facts, only their interpretation.

 

[the nature boy]

Re: Re: Down the Tubes with Dubya

Interesting that this seeming left-leaner Krugman would criticize Bush for doing nothing about "real problems". As I said before, this is politics as usual. Doubt it? Under Clinton, there were three major terror attacks attributable to Osama bin Laden, and the response was largely to take actions that did not address the problem. US politics is big on "ignore and it goes away" or "push it off 10 years...I'm out in 8." Left or right it is the same. Clinton figured that the terror problem would solve itself, or at least be pre-empted by news about the booming Internet economy. Bush is doing the exact opposite. Opposite, but not different. Krugman should spend his effrots criticizing the sandbox, not the kids playing in it.

bush did the exact opposite only AFTER 9-11. Where was he before 9-11????? Nowhere! Did he forget about the 1st WTC bombing, the USS cole, and the embassy bombings? I guess so. Bush gets no credit for going after bin ladden and terrorism. Clinton may have not done enough agains Al Queda, but Bush didn't do jack shit. Nobody ever brings that up. He must have assumed that there was some kind of clean slate when it came to Al Queda. Please.

 

[musclebrains]

Re: Re: Re: Down the Tubes with Dubya

bush did the exact opposite only AFTER 9-11. Where was he before 9-11????? Nowhere! Did he forget about the 1st WTC bombing, the USS cole, and the embassy bombings? I guess so. Bush gets no credit for going after bin ladden and terrorism. Clinton may have not done enough agains Al Queda, but Bush didn't do jack shit. Nobody ever brings that up. He must have assumed that there was some kind of clean slate when it came to Al Queda. Please.

Matt is just blowing smoke. Clinton appointed the commission to create the agency that Dubya is now calling his own creation. Dubya intentionally rejected the conclusions of that commission -- mainly that terrorism posed a serious enough threat to America to revise our security. And we think it's just a big accident that his administration ignored the warnings it received. Dubya had declared his indifference.

Further, it was Dubya's express wish to avoid any involvement in the Middle East and bring on himself the kind of criticism Clinton did in his peacemaking efforss. That's why he waffled so enormously when the tension in Palestine became so great and the whole world wondered what jetliner he was cruzin' around this go-round. Who? Me? I ain't Clinton!

 

[Sushi X]

well we only have two more years. then things will take a turn for the better. bush will be out and i hope gore will be in.

re-elect al gore in 2004.

 

[the nature boy]

well I don't really think Gore is any better. probably smarter, but that's it.

 

[RyanH]

Enron Corp. sought to use its political clout and deep pockets to curry favor with the Clinton administration for a proposed $3 billion power plant project in India, giving $100,000 to the Democratic Party when the deal was being completed.
-
During the Clinton years, Lay and other Enron executives got seats on at least four Energy Department trade missions and at least seven Commerce Department trade trips, including a junket to India.
-
From Jan. 13, 1995, to Jan. 21, 1995, Lay joined late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on the India junket.

Half way through the mission, two federal export-finance agencies – the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. – announced they had agreed to lend nearly $400 million to an Enron-led group to build a $920 million electric power plant in Dabhoi, India.

The second phase of the power project called for building a 1,320-megawatt plant that would be fired by liquefied natural gas.

The project's overall value was about $3 billion.

Lay pal Mack McLarty, then-White House counselor, helped him close the deal by tracking the project with the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi and briefing Lay on the administration's efforts. (President Clinton even helped. White House documents uncovered by Time in 1997 show he wrote a Nov. 22, 1996, FYI note to McLarty and enclosed a newspaper article on Enron and the power project.)
-
Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant.
-
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary and current Citigroup executive Robert Rubin telephoned Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher regarding Enron and its creditors on Nov. 8, Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis said Friday. Rubin "asked Fisher what he thought of the idea of Fisher placing a call to rating agencies to work with Enron's bankers to see if there is an alternative to an immediate downgrade," Davis said. "Fisher responded he didn't think it advisable to make such a call. Rubin said he thought that was a reasonable position. Fisher made no call." The eventual credit downgrades were a final action that pushed the troubled Enron almost immediately into the largest U.S. bankruptcy ever.
-
Ron Brown, Al Gore and Bill Clinton introduced Enron to market managers in Russia, China, Indonesia and India. In India, Enron quickly became involved in one of that country's most massive corruption investigations, contracts were canceled and Enron was out.
-
On the other hand, Enron introduced the Clinton team to Lippo Industries and thence to China's People's Liberation Army (a wonderful source of political cash), to John Huang, another good provider and to nameless, numberless Arabs who never arrived with empty pockets.

What's your premise? If you are trying to say that the Democrats also accepted money from Enron, well, of course they did---that's an obvious fact, old news. (Note however that the contributions are still far less than the contributions Republicans received from Enron.) Everyone knows it's the Republicans who are in bed with the corrupt energy industry, not the Democrats. During the California black-out which party was pushing for price controls over energy prices? The Democrats, not the Republicans. (even though Enron was intentionally price gouging). Democrats have shown a willingness to stand up against big energy, i.e. Arctic wildlife. When have the Republican ever went against the wishes of the energy industry? Not recently, that's for sure.

Nevertheless, What's really important is that the Clinton Administration did not conduct private meetings with Enron to discuss national policy and then refuse to publicly disclose the minutes from those meetings.

Poink, Why don't you tell us why you think Bush and Cheney are still refusing to release those energy commission minutes, even over the demands of the GAO? Any ideas?

 

[cockdezl]

What's your premise? If you are trying to say that the Democrats also accepted money from Enron, well, of course they did---that's an obvious fact, old news. (Note however that the contributions are still far less than the contributions Republicans received from Enron.)

All the above shows is that the Democrats will prostitute themselves for a lower price. Just low self-esteem, I guess.

 

[VicTusDeuS]

I always find it amusing how statistics show that the more education a person has the more likely they are to vote republican. Maybe this means something. Obviously those complaining about the tax cuts know nothing about economics and love to run their mouths using the same excuse that it always helps the rich. I was a student working throughout my college education and because of President Bush I got $500.00 extra last year. Im happy to have this extra $500.00 that I worked for and not some leeching minority looking for a handout.

The Dems love you guys....even the Canadian liberals. Go take some Economics classes and then you might have a clue. Tax cuts definately helped the economy....but the problem with the budget is that Democrats love to spend other people's money.

The NY Times is filled with Left Wing Propoganda.

Try to read between the lines.

 

[p0ink]

Poink, Why don't you tell us why you think Bush and Cheney are still refusing to release those energy commission minutes, even over the demands of the GAO? Any ideas?

ryan, why is it such a crime to consult the energy industry leaders while developing a new energy plan? they are the experts, so it would make sense for the bush administration to ask them. and the reason why the bush administration is refusing to release the minutes is because, they dont have to, and if they were to do so, it would only set a precedent for these people who wish they were/think they are president to continue to harass the executive branch until 2004. plus, if the administration couldnt have any confidential meetings, it would mean less people from the private sector would speak to them.