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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.