George W. Bush on the Economy and Iraq… and Congress
George W. Bush wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal. In it, he calls on Congress to work with him for the sake of the nation.
Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don’t expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today’s Washington. To do that, however, we can’t play politics as usual. Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve.
…
I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure. I believe that wealth does not come from government. It comes from the hard work of America’s workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses. I believe government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable. I believe government plays an important role in helping those who can’t help themselves. Yet we must always remember that when people are hurting, they need a caring person, not a government bureaucracy.These are all common-sense principles, and they provide the basis for how I will approach governing with the new Congress. We’ve proved it can be done: When our nation was attacked, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the Patriot Act and reform our intelligence agencies. When our economy was struggling, we worked together to pass tax relief that has helped our economy grow, create jobs, and raise the standard of living for the American people. When we saw that our public schools were failing our children, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, insisting on high standards, accountability and better options for parents.
What must Congress (and Bush) focus on?
1. Iraq
But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq–and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America’s enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war.
2. Economy
By balancing the budget through pro-growth economic policies and spending restraint, we are better positioned to tackle the longer term fiscal challenge facing our country: reforming entitlements–Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid–so future generations can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country.
He goes on to write that Congress should give a line-item veto to the President of the United States of America and that if “Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for [America]“.
One of the main focuses should – in my opinion – be the incredibly big deficit. That deficit does not just have a negative impact now, it will continue to be a burden for generations to come, especially if nothing is done to reduce it. A strong, vibrant economy should not have to – perhaps cannot – carry the burden of a deficit of these proportions. The pork problem is – obviously – quite a good start, but that’s it. It’s not more than just a good start. If the road to fiscal responsibility ends here, I fear for America that fiscal responsibility has died already. Or at least under the Presidency of George W. Bush. If this is true, if Congress does not force George W. Bush to act in a fiscally responsible manner, America will have two more years of irresponsible behavior for which future generations will have to suffer.
The now Democratic Congress should ask George W. Bush: how do you plan on decreasing the deficit? The Democratic Congress should work with George W. Bush to create a comprehensive plan in which they cut in expenses, and possibly raise taxes (especially for the upper classes)… all in an attempt to do something against this major American problem.
What America needs right now is fiscal conservatives, not big spenders.
On Iraq, it seems to me, it will be very difficult for the Democratic Congress to truly work with George W. Bush. Bush seems to be dedicated to increasing the amount of American forces in Iraq which is not something the Democrats want. If the Democrats would agree to send more troops, if they would actively start favoring it, they will most likely commit political suicide, considering the fact that the far majority of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq and considering the anti-Iraq campaign the Democrats used to get elected. The Democrats could try to compromise, however Bush does not seem to be willing to compromise the least bit. Working together without regard for partisanship (paraphrased) seems to mean agreeing with whatever George W. decides, according to that same George W.
As you all know, I believe that it would be in the best interest of America (and of the world and of those who have invested in America(n businesses) in one way or another) if the Democrats would try to work with Bush as much as possible. This, however, means that Bush too has to be willing to compromise. That’s the keyword right now: to compromise. If the Democrats are willing to compromise on important issues, but if George W. Bush is not… the next two years are in the very real danger of becoming utterly useless.
Others blogging:
Jules Crittenden who thinks that the Democrats will not be willing to put partisanship behind them.
TBogg who wonders whether George W. Bush wrote the piece himself.
And lastly, Mark Thoma at the Economist’s View:
There’s not much new here in terms of economic policy, in fact, he’s even clinging to the notion despite all evidence to the contrary that “tax cuts have fueled record revenues. … By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 … The bottom line is tax relief …[is] good for the federal budget.” Working effectively with congress starts by arguing from a reality-based perspective, not from ideological hopes. It will be difficult to find common ground if policy is based upon what he wants to be true rather than what the evidence actually shows. And that’s true for Iraq as well.
Indeed.
22 Responses to “George W. Bush on the Economy and Iraq… and Congress”
The Congress should force Bush to include spending for Iraq in the yearly budget proposal. Then we’ll see how much he wants to reduce the defecit.
If he wrote this himself, I’m a monkey’s uncle–too many big words in there for his pea-brain. See why Al Gore will be the Dem’s choice in 2008 and NOT Hillary at http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
Revenues are up, so if we want to have an honest discussion about how to reduce the deficit, why shouldn’t we start by acknowledging that under certain recessionary conditions like we experienced after 2001, tax cuts can be good for the economy and good for the federal coffers? From there, if it is also true that these lower tax rates won’t continue to lead to maximum revenue, than that is an honest criticism of Bush’s policy recommendations. But to say that he is delusional by pointing out the record high federal revenues is itself dishonest.
While I might agree with you to a degree C.S., I think that it is safe to conclude that Bush isn’t the most fiscal responsible President the U.S. ever had. As such, it is increasingly important that he is being criticized time and time again for his economic policies. I would say, keep the pressure on.
Also,
Obviously, I never said myself that he is delusional. You might have noticed that I often link to people I disagree with. Just as to provide balance / different perspectives. My ‘indeed’ was aimed at this:
Well, my criticism was aimed at the article you linked to, not toward you personally
I agree that Bush has NOT been fiscally responsible but as always, I believe that criticism is most effective when it is completely honest and when it doesn’t engage in hyperbole or misstatement of fact. So, criticize Bush for the spending and perhaps for thinking that tax cuts are always appropriate (rather than, as I believe, that they are appropriate under certain economic conditions). But it drives me batty when people refuse to acknowledge that sometimes cutting tax RATES can actually increase revenues. Of course when Congress and the president then spend the extra revenue, we haven’t made any progress in balancing the budget, but it’s still important to recognize that tax policy is not a zero sum game.
Michael,
Thanks for the link to Jules Crittenden. I can’t bear read the guy so I’m glad you’re willing to do it for me.
And since you link to him approvingly so often, can I assume you agree with Jules when he celebrates the fact that only 65,000 Iraqi civilians are being killed per year?
Lets see, I linked to 3 blogs in this post… one conservative the others not.
If I would agree with all three of them, I would be quite mixed up wouldn’t I?
Conclusion, your question, Davebe is quite… silly.
“[If] Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for [America]”
sounds to me like Bush’s version of ‘working together’ is for everyone to agree with him.
If I’d asked if you agreed with all three of them, I’d look pretty silly.
But since I asked if you agreed with one post, not the blog overall, your reply seems to be a poorly crafted dodge wouldn’t you say?
Why not just say “I refuse to condone or condemn the post you cited”? It’s a dodge as well, but at least it’s a slightly more relevant dodge.
Conclusion: Whatever you want to conclude from it. But at least reach your conclusions based on what I actually say rather than on what you wished I’d said.
Bush doesn’t need a line-item-veto, just the plain old veto would have worked the last six years. The Republicans thought that bribing the constituants and lining the pockets of corparate backers would maintain their power – actual good government be damned. Old Jerry Ford wore out his veto pen, I’ll bet W uses his as a partisan weapon – stabs in the pback.
Davebo, nice attempt at a wordgame.
I made clear how ridiculous your question was and by doing so and by first writing down my own opinion on Bush’s op-ED, it should be clear to everyone that I do not agree with Jules’s post.
That doesn’t mean, however, that I cannot link to it. As somebody else told me recently: Jules is a partisan but he writes SO WELL.
Republican policies of Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are the worst in terms of debt since WWII, as I have repeatedly pointed out. CS, spin it any way you want, but every president since WWII has reduced the national debt (as a % of GDP), except these three. That makes modern Republican fiscal policy transparently bad. Check the graph, from White House figures HERE.
Bush Sr. was right to call Reaganomics “voodoo economics” but when he saw that Americans are willing to steal from their kids for short term illusory prosperity, he embraced it in a big way. Now the whole party pretends that cutting taxes is a way out of debt rather than deeper into it.
Tax revenues are up? So what? What a disingenuous argument. If you give Halliburton 40 billion of your kids’ dollars, they pay a fraction of it to employees who pay taxes. The net effect is HUGELY negative, even though tax revenue goes up slightly.
Maybe you’ve noticed, Bush isn’t interested in working with anyone on the Iraq issue. He’ll tell us what he plans to do when he’s good and ready. Nobody can rush him, nobody can advise him, nobody else has a vote on the matter. The rest of us will be called on to sacrifice but he doesn’t care what we think.
How do the Democrats work with that? And why should they try when his decisions have been catastrophic so far?
Let’s remember Bush inherited a $230 billion dollar surplus and converted it to a nearly half trillion dollar deficit. Should we be impressed that he thinks he can cut that in half by the end of his term? You want to give him credit because things aren’t as bad as they were last year?
Michael,
Got it, you denounced Jules post which I linked to, by voicing your disagreement with an Op Ed by George W. Bush.
By disagreeing with Bush’s plan for a “surge” you’re also voicing your disagreement with Jules claim that 65k dead Iraqis a year represents progress.
Got it. And I am soo glad you don’t play “word games”.
Yup.
Greendreams,
The govt didn’t GIVE Halliburton or any other person or individual anything. It simply didn’t take as much as you would have had it take. And yes, it is significant that the revenues to the govt increased when the tax rates were cut. For you to say otherwise is spin on your part, not mine.
Mikef,
It’s not a matter of giving Bush or anyone else credit. I simply happen to believe that when you attempt to solve a problem, it helps to have your facts straight first. As far as faulting Bush, Rudi has it right: the veto pen needs to come out of retirement, line item or not.
CSTAN:
Cutting taxes never raises the revenue. It took until 2005 for the gov’t to bring in more money than it did in 2000. Thats a straight dollar comparison as well, not adjusted for inflation. If you do that we are still behind the pre-Bush era in tax generation.
Also, tax rates have a very marginal impact on economic performance. The economy has overall been very strong in the last 6 decades regardless of tax rates at any given time. You have periods where taxes are low and the economy is good, taxes are high and the economy is good, and conversely times where taxes are either low or high and the economy is bad. The issues that have affected the economy, either up or down, have NEVER been linked to tax rates. By taxes I mean income tax, not things such as tariffs. I would say that the economy would be doing just as well today if Bush’s tax cuts had never been employed. You’ll recall under Bush Sr. we also had a recession, taxes were increased and we still pulled out of it.
Things like the fed interest rate, and the institutions that control the flow of money in this country have a much larger impact on the economy. These things dwarf the relevance of income tax.
Right. The facts are that we had a surplus when Bush took office and revenues vs. expenditures had been increasing ever since Bush Sr. reneged on his no new taxes pledge. Bush Jr. turned that around the day he signed his first tax bill. Then deficits exploded. His latest goal (cutting the deficit in half from his worst year) would still leave us with yearly deficits larger than any other president in history.
If he’d done nothing at all we’d be in better shape. No tax cuts necessary.
CS you missed the point. The government indeed, gave Halliburton and other cronies money from the treasury in “no-bid” contracts. The small amount their employees paid in taxes is far less than what we paid, hence there is a net loss to the treasury, even though technically tax revenues are increased by it.
Gotta love this. One person argues that tax rates have nothing to do with economic recoveries while another person argues that Bush’s tax cuts were the ruin of the economy (ignoring, of course, that the economy in 2000 was affected by the bursting of the dotcom bubble and in 2001 we had this teensy world event that could potentially have led to a worldwide economic collapse and subsequently we went to war- but no, it was Bush’s tax cuts, damnit!)
You guys can’t both be right, which then leaves open the possibility that my argument was correct: that tax cuts done properly and at the proper time can provide economic stimulus during a recession and can lead to a higher amount of federal revenue than would a higher tax rate.
Thats because CStan while tax rates in and of themselves have little impact, huge deficits resulting from low taxes can play havoc with the bond market and consumer confidence. You can lower taxes, and as long as you also have lower spending its ok. And even so, just because someone disagrees with me on the importance of taxes, and we both disagree with you, doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.