Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

The Bush train wreck

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 97silverlsc

The Bush train wreck

By Bryan D. Jones
Special to The Seattle Times

One of my favorite George Bush malapropisms is from the 2000 election campaign: "They have miscalculated me as a leader." He meant, of course, that people had miscalculated if they thought he was not a leader.

The president's difficulties with off-the-cuff speech have led to all sorts of assumptions about his intellectual confusion and worse.

But there is nothing confused about this president's agenda. At this point in his presidency, he has fielded the most focused agenda in modern times, to great effect. His success rate in major policy activities is nothing less than astounding. No wonder he has never vetoed a bill!

Ironically, though, this tightly focused and highly successful agenda has led to an incoherent program and with no understandable governing philosophy — for both the president and his party. The legacy of Bush is a modern Republican Party with no anchor, no clear goals, rushing forward doing things, accomplishing much, but putting into place policies that do not add up to a sensible public philosophy to sustain the future.

Such inconsistency leads inevitably to irresponsible public finance. And that is how the Republican Party came to forsake its heritage of small government and fiscal prudence. It has traded a sound and guiding set of principles for a set of confused and self-contradictory assertions that are nevertheless asserted with strong conviction. The inevitable result is poor government.

Ad hoc reasons are generated to cover policy initiatives instead of initiatives being grounded in sound reasoning. Rather than an underlying rationale of limited government, or of Christian values, or of neoconservative power, one gets a set of disconnected and one-time theories to cover what is being done.

For tax cuts, we get "it's the people's money" and "we need an economic stimulus," and "if we 'starve the beast' by limiting its revenue flows, then government will shrink." For the invasion of Iraq, we get "weapons of mass destruction" to "ridding the world of a dictator" to "promoting democracy throughout the world."

Unfortunately, the collective result of a focused, successful agenda and an incoherent public philosophy is government by inconsistency.

This incoherence is brand new. For most of the period since the Great Depression, the Republican Party articulated the case for limited government and fiscal responsibility.

Even when Republicans expanded government — as they did in the Eisenhower years with a commitment to science, space and transportation — they stood rock solid for prudent budgeting. If the government took it on, the taxpayers would have to pony up the means.

The first major change came with the notion, adopted by President Ronald Reagan, that tax cuts would stimulate enough revenue that government would not need to control spending. Reagan tried mightily to get Congress to limit domestic spending (while he pushed large new military initiatives) at the same time taxes were cut.

When the supply-side endeavor failed, yielding huge deficits rather than a balanced budget, Reagan's advisers prevailed on him to support tax increases.

Then congressional Republicans and Democrats together put in place a series of rules — the "pay-go" rules — designed to hold fast to the understanding that budgets needed to be balanced and public finances needed to be restrained. They required offsetting money to fund new programs or new tax cuts. These restraints died in 2001 when President Bush refused to support their renewal.

There isn't any doubt that Bush and the Republican Congress have collaborated to grow government. Fiscal constraints have collapsed, and the small-government/fiscal-prudence wing of the Republican Party lies in ruin.

The extent of the rout is shocking. Since Bush's first inaugural, the outlays (actual spending) of the U.S. government have grown at an annual average of 4.35 percent above inflation, according to calculations I made from the Office of Management and Budget's reported data.

This compares with a per-year average of 1.22 percent during the Clinton administration, 2.96 during the administration of the senior Bush, and 2.66 during the two Reagan terms.

This growth is not simply due to a burgeoning defense budget, as non-defense expenditures have increased at a 3.13-percent annual clip, far higher than Bill Clinton's modest 1.82 percent.

More ominously, during the Bush administration, major new entitlement programs have been established, requiring vast sums in the future even if present expenditures are modest.

The Medicare drug-reform law — the largest health-policy initiative since Lyndon Johnson — will cause spending of $100 billion per year by 2015, according to Bush administration estimates.

No Child Left Behind has promised states increased education funding, and the act itself is the most extensive federal intrusion in the field of K-12 education ever.

The proposed partial privatization of Social Security is, truth be told, a vast new entitlement itself, in which current contributors can use their money while still funding the benefits of the retired. By 2015, we'll be spending an additional $200 billion a year for this program.

We pay nothing for these programs now, but they write into law obligations that are very expensive down the road.

Add to this increased national police powers developed in the USA Patriot Act, the important but expensive Homeland Security initiatives, the vast increase in farm subsidies Bush supported in his past term, and the unprecedented centralization of legal matters from state to federal courts, and one gets a rush toward big national centralized government matched only by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

This frenetic activity has had a profound effect on the growth of government. It is easy to detect a strong shift in the government spending exactly at the time Bush took office. Using simple projections, we can calculate that the fiscal path pursued by George H.W. Bush and Clinton would have led to a government approximately 15-percent smaller today than it actually is. [See the accompanying chart at the end of this commentary.]

Yet, these massive new government programs are being, and will be for the foreseeable future, funded from borrowing.

Bush's tax cuts, which were supposed to stimulate revenue growth to offset their costs, have instead driven down federal revenues from almost 21 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2000 to 16.3 percent last year. The tax cuts failed to stimulate enough growth to recoup the lost revenue, and economists predict they will not do so in the foreseeable future. Simultaneously, outlays have grown from 18.4 percent of GDP to 19.8 percent, leading to record-breaking deficits.

Because most of the impacts of the tax cuts are scheduled to take effect later in the decade, we can anticipate even further declines in federal revenue, and hence even larger deficits.

Is the current policy incoherence simply a result of governing and needing to satisfy interest groups? That is likely to be part of the story, but surely major constituencies still exist for prudent financing. In any case, the role of a party philosophy is to steel party members against needless capitulation to interests. Moreover, the policy incoherence is not because of the activities of Congress, the normal home of interest-group politics.

This policy incoherence comes from a strong presidency, and in particular from the strong, focused agenda of this disciplined president.

It is actually quite easy to describe the current policies of the Republican Party: big, intrusive government, providing vast new entitlements and domestic programs, vast new police and "homeland security" intrusions into civil society, and an aggressive military policy coupled with huge tax cuts that lead to ballooning deficits as the entitlements come due and the tax cuts expand on schedule.

The result is Big Government, financed by passing the bulk of the costs on to the future through massive borrowing. It is simply not possible to create a political rationale — an ideology, if you will — that can be stretched to cover these policies.

Even as the fundamental rationale of what has been the Republican Party — limited government, choice and responsibility — have all collapsed, much of the rhetoric of Republican leaders continues to read from the old script. Limited government is inevitably enshrined in the party's platform — the 2004 version says, "We believe that good government is based on a system of limited taxes and spending." Yet that principle no longer guides the GOP.

What does? For many Republicans today, the litmus test of conservatism has become one's commitment to tax cuts.

Tax cuts are justified because, so it is claimed, they inevitably lead to less government. But "starving the beast" — denying government revenue so it will have to shrink — has been a complete failure. It didn't work in the Reagan years, and it hasn't worked for George W. Bush.

Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. The most sustained deceleration in the growth rate of the federal government in modern times — from 1991 through 2000 — occurred as taxes were raised. Tax increases were paired with program cuts to overcome the monumental deficits caused by the Reagan administration's foolhardy experiment with "supply side" financing, and because Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton agreed that fiscal responsibility was the key to sustained prosperity.

After 2000, as taxes were cut by Bush and the Republican Congress, outlays — in real dollars and as a percent of GDP — rose rapidly. The G.H.W. Bush-Clinton era of responsible finances was over. Without sustained fiscal discipline, government grew as taxes were slashed.

In any case, squawking about tax cuts cannot serve as a unifying public philosophy for a governing party. A more comprehensive and convincing approach is required.

It's a great irony that political scientists and citizens alike should ponder. One of the most focused and disciplined presidents in U.S. history has generated a completely incoherent program, one that saddles his country and his party with a path toward a Third World debt pattern and his party with an incomprehensible governing philosophy.

Bryan D. Jones is the Donald R. Matthews Distinguished Professor of American Government and director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Bryan D. Jones is the Donald R. Matthews Distinguished Professor of American Government and director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington.

In typical left-wing whining liberal style, this professor, (I chuckle because aren't they always 'professors') pontificates about all the problems the Republicans and Bush are causing, yet I didn't see one passage in this article where this 'intellect' offered up any type of solution. Always complaining, never solving. Typical.

Posted by: barry2952

I don't see where GWB is doing anything to stop the "train wreck". Even his own hand picked advisors are leaving or have left due to his confusing and confounding decisions.

I read today that Bush's plan for SS is doomed to failure as an identical program was implemented in England and has failed miserably. In fact, they have decided to copy America's existing SS program as one that works better than any other country's plan.

"Worst President Ever"!

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I read today that Bush's plan for SS is doomed to failure as an identical program was implemented in England and has failed miserably. In fact, they have decided to copy America's existing SS program as one that works better than any other country's plan.

Proffer up a solution. There are fewer paying in and more taking out.

ANYTIME the government 'allows' you do take more control of 'YOUR' own money is a good thing. That is why the left hates this idea. Empowering people takes away the power from the left.

I was takin back while listening to a 'black owned', (call it African-American owned if you prefer), radio station the other day. (I like to stay as balanced as possible, if you can believe that). Anyway, I was really blown away when a guy comes on advertising his company services to help people buy their own home. He used words like pride, responsibility, maturity, control, ownership, and self-worth. I was blown away. The African-American community is starting to buy into the ownership society. They are starting to understand that even they can now reach out and grab ahold of the 'American Dream'.

And they know who to thank. George W. Bush. This movement spells bad times ahead for the lefties. People taking control of their own destiny is not a good thing for Democrats, but is a good thing for Americans.

Posted by: barry2952

GWB, hero to the working class. Make me puke!

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

GWB, hero to the working class. Make me puke!

Actually, wouldn't that be hero to the disenfranchised class if we are speaking of African-Americans?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

LOL, the only "ownership" in BuSh's "society" is that of big corporations pimping cheap foreign labor, thus pushing the middle class into bankruptcy from increasing medical costs and lost jobs, leaving their behinds owned by the credit card companies who will be protected by the new bankruptcy laws.

Bryan, a "solution" to SS HAS been offered up, and is being IGNORED by the GOP. Raising that $90K cap on SS contributions goes a LOOONNNNGGGG way to keeping SS afloat for generations. If you can't see the solutions being suggested, it's not the Dem's fault 'yall are ignorant. Dare I add: TYPICAL.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Bryan, a "solution" to SS HAS been offered up, and is being IGNORED by the GOP. Raising that $90K cap on SS contributions goes a LOOONNNNGGGG way to keeping SS afloat for generations.

What amount are they wanting it raised to?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

What amount are they wanting it raised to?

I've heard $140K one place, $190K from another, and complete removal of the cap from a third. HEY, if I were the GOP, that'd count as THREE proposals!

Posted by: barry2952

I've read that the limit would be removed altogether. If that were to happen then the rate should be adjusted downward for everyone. This rate could be adjusted according to the current load on the system.

When we baby boomers are gone there will be lots of money to spread around.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I've read that the limit would be removed altogether. If that were to happen then the rate should be adjusted downward for everyone. This rate could be adjusted according to the current load on the system.

When we baby boomers are gone there will be lots of money to spread around.

That's what I'd like to see, no limit. It'd be nice to see the Paris Hiltons, Oprahs, Bill Gates, Michael Jacksons, Martha Stewarts, George Bushs, Rockefellers, P-Diddys and Howard Stearns of this country carry their own weight for a change. Why should the burden of this safety net fall solely on the backs of the middle class?

Posted by: Pepsi2185

I could not agree more johnny. Its hard to be a millionare in todays society even though 5 hummer H2's do not pay for themselves.

Posted by: Joeychgo

I think the whole idea GW is floating with the personal accounts is BS.

I saw some numbers the other day - and all this hoopla is a waste of time. Why? It's going to cost WAY more then the country can afford. (and since we'll have to borrow the money it'll cost even more with interest)

Not only is it going to cost more, but the net increase in benefits that it will produce are minimal. The numbers I saw show something like this.

If at retirement I am entitled to 2400 a month at that time under the current program, If I do well with my investment choices it will be worth 2500 a month - and if I dont do well it will be worth 2350 a month.

But what if we are in the midst of a depression or deep recession when I want to retire?

Long story short, too many problems with what is being floated. Doesnt matter - the plan has minimal support. It wont go any further then Hillary's national health care plan.