The First Draft of History Looks Rough for Bush

April 11, 2008
The First Draft of History Looks Rough for Bush

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush's presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, "tax breaks for the rich," and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it's too early to assess how his policies will turn out.

Bush's Legacy of Failure

March 19, 2008
Bush's Legacy of Failure

That idiotic "what me worry?" look just never leaves the man's visage. Once again there was our president, presiding over disasters in part of his making and totally on his watch, grinning with an aplomb that suggested a serious disconnect between his worldview and existing reality. Be it in his announcement that Iraq was being secured on a day when bombs ripped through that sad land or posed between his treasury secretary and the Federal Reserve chairman to applaud the government's bailout of a failed bank, George Bush was the only one inexplicably smiling.

Failure suits him. It is a stance he learned well while presiding over one failed Texas business deal after another, and it served him splendidly as he claimed the title of president of the United States after losing the popular, and maybe even the electoral, vote. It carried him through the most ignominious chapter of U.S. foreign policy, from the lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to an unprecedented presidential defense of torture.

The Bush Financial and Economic Bust of 2008 - The Destruction of Capital

February 6, 2008
The Bush Financial and Economic Bust of 2008 - The Destruction of Capital

On January 14, 2008 the FDIC web site began posting the rules for reimbursing depositors in the event of a bank failure. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is required to determine the total insured amount for each depositor....as of the day of the failure" and return their money as quickly as possible. The agency is "modernizing its current business processes and procedures for determining deposit insurance coverage in the event of a failure of one of the largest insured depository institutions."

The implication is clear, the FDIC has begun the "death watch" on the many banks which are currently drowning in their own red ink. The problem for the FDIC is that it has never supervised a bank failure which exceeded 175,000 accounts. So the impending financial tsunami is likely to be a crash-course in crisis management. Today some of the larger banks have more than 50 million depositors, which will make the FDIC's job nearly impossible.

Federal Government Employment Rose Faster Than Private Sector

February 9, 2008
Federal Government Employment Rose Faster Than Private Sector

IT is not exactly a distinction that he had in mind, but seven years into his presidency, George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World War II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the privatesector.

That is not because federal government jobs have risen at an unusually rapid rate over the last seven years — although the increase did reverse a substantial decline under Mr. Bush's most recent predecessor, Bill Clinton.

With the economy clearly slowing as the final year of Mr. Bush's presidency begins, it is possible that the overall rate of growth in private sector employment for his presidency, now at 0.53 percent per year, could fall below the 0.41 percent rate of his father's administration, which had been the lowest of any president since World War II.

Bush's last spending plan only adds to a disastrous fiscal legacy

February 5, 2008
Bush's last spending plan only adds to a disastrous fiscal legacy

The president proposed to pay down the debt by $2 trillion during that time, which, he said, was as much as could be responsibly redeemed. He offered lavish tax cuts. And he vowed to "confront great challenges from which Government has too long flinched," putting Social Security and Medicare on solid financial footing.

But the fact remains that the purported surplus on which Mr. Bush based his tax-cutting agenda
was always something of a mirage, and the president has never been willing to adjust his agenda to
the grim new fiscal reality. Yesterday's promise of a small surplus by 2012 is once again premised
on omitting likely costs (zero is budgeted for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) and by assuming
cuts to domestic spending that are unachievable politically and, in large part, unwise as a matter
of policy.

Our big-spender President

February 2, 2008
Our big-spender President

President Bush's budget for fiscal year 2009, which goes to Congress, carries an alarming
distinction: For the first time in the history of the republic, annual federal spending will cross
the $3 trillion mark.

And federal spending got there early. That figure had been anticipated but not until next year
when the new president would have been saddled with that honor.

Bush was also in office when the government crossed the $2 trillion mark in 2002 and the
budget, thanks to the president's free spending Republican allies in Congress, sank into deficit
after four years of surpluses.

To get a sense of the growth of government, consider: Spending didn't cross the $1 trillion
mark until 1987 and the $100 billion threshold until 1972.

GOP lost in defense budget black hole

February 1, 2008
GOP lost in defense budget black hole

The U.S. currently spends roughly as much as the rest of the world combined. Nevertheless, Talent talked of "threats that are highly unpredictable and therefore, taken as a whole, more dangerous than the threats we faced during the Cold War."

Apparently those years of defending war-ravaged allies from an aggressive Soviet Union, unpredictable Maoist China, and various European and Third World communist satellites were nothing compared with confronting Osama bin Laden with his vast legions.

Bush legacy: Setting a standard in fear-mongering

February 1, 2008
Bush legacy: Setting a standard in fear-mongering

When I left the Bush administration in 2003, it was clear to me that its strategy for defeating terrorism was leaving our nation more vulnerable and our people in a perilous place. Not only did its policies misappropriate resources, weaken the moral standing of America, and threaten long-standing legal and constitutional provisions, but the president also employed misleading and reckless rhetoric to perpetuate his agenda.

This week's State of the Union proved nothing has changed.

Besides overstating successes in Afghanistan, painting a rosy future for Iraq, and touting unfinished domestic objectives, he again used his favorite tactic - fear - as a tool to scare Congress and the American people. On one issue in particular - FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) - the president misconstrued the truth and manipulated the facts.

U.S. budget deficit likely to hit $250 billion

January 23, 2008
U.S. budget deficit likely to hit $250 billion

WASHINGTON - The overall U.S. budget deficit could hit $350 billion this year, largely due to a weakening economy and the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Congressional Budget Office and a top Senate official.

The non-partisan CBO says that once the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is added to its "baseline" deficit estimate of $219 billion, the deficit would be about $250 billion.

The 50 Year Strategy: A New Progressive Era

November/December 2007 Issue, 2007
The 50 Year Strategy: A New Progressive Era

Today's progressives face a political opportunity as great as any seen since. The election of
2006 may well have marked the end of the conservative ascendancy that began with the election of
Ronald Reagan in 1980. George W. Bush now has the potential to do what Herbert Hoover did in the 1920s—tarnish his party's brand for a generation or more.

As in FDR's day, a new media is emerging, one that will ultimately replace the broadcast model
of the 20th century. A new American populace is emerging, led by the arrival of the millennial
generation and a new wave of immigrants, particularly Hispanics. And once again, the nation faces
massive challenges—from climate change to health care in the era of biotech and preparing
young people for a global economy. On the eve of the 2008 election, it's worth raising our sights
beyond what it would take for a Democrat to win the presidency, and begin thinking about what it
would take to bring about deeper, more lasting changes. The stars have aligned to give
progressives a chance to permanently shift the conversation about the nation's values. The
question before us now is, Do today's progressives have what it takes to do what FDR and his
allies accomplished 75 years ago—seize the new politics, take on the big challenges, and
usher in a new era?

US sufffers decline in prestige

September 12, 2007
US sufffers decline in prestige

The US has suffered a significant loss of power and prestige around the world in the years since George W. Bush came to power, limiting its ability to influence international crises, an annual survey from a well regarded British security think-tank concluded on Tuesday.

The 2007 Strategic Survey of the non-partisan International Institute for Strategic Studies picked the decline of US authority as one of the most important security developments of the past year – but suggested the fading of American prestige began earlier, largely due to its failings in Iraq.

But a more fundamental loss of clout occurred at a strategic level. "It was evident that exercise of military power – in which, on paper, America dominated the world – had not secured its goal," the survey says. The failings in Iraq created a sense around the world of American power "diminished and demystified", with adversaries believing they will prevail if they manage to draw the US into a prolonged engagement.

Five percent of Americans say they trust the Bush Administration to resolve the Iraq conflict

September 6, 2007
Five percent of Americans say they trust the Bush Administration to resolve the Iraq conflict

ONLY 5 per cent of Americans say they trust the Bush Administration to resolve the Iraq conflict, says a poll published on the eve of the American commander's appearances before Congress.

The Times/CBS poll published yesterday underscores why the Administration is banking on General Petraeus and its ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to convince Republicans in Congress and the public to stick with the surge strategy.

Twenty-one per cent said they would most trust Congress to resolve the Iraq war while 68 per cent expressed the most trust in military commanders.

How Bush betrays Reagan

September 4, 2007
How Bush betrays Reagan

Reagan never repudiated any of these right-wing political positions. Yet as president, he caved in on every one of them. As Joshua Green argued in 2001 in the Washington Monthly, "beyond his conservative legacy, Ronald Reagan has bequeathed a liberal one." After taking office, he promised to "rebuild the foundation of our society" by slashing the size of the federal government, but during his eight years in office, the federal government expanded. He inveighed against the deficit, but on his watch the deficit grew enormously. Instead of killing Social Security, he saved it with a $165 billion bailout. And, most heretically, he raised taxes -- a whopping $100 billion increase over three years, the largest increase in almost 40 years.

By backing the dictatorial regime in El Salvador, which he saw as a bulwark against communism, Reagan abetted a brutal civil war that cost 75,000 lives. Similarly, his support for the Nicaraguan Contras, whom he infamously described as "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers," led to fighting that killed as many as 50,000 people. Instead of building on Jimmy Carter's breakthrough at Camp David, his incompetence and unwillingness to challenge the right-wing Israeli government of Menachem Begin severely weakened America's ability to broker a Mideast peace. As the Washington Post's David Ignatius wrote, "The Reagan years saw the demise of the Great American Mediation Machine in the Middle East." The consequences of Reagan's Mideast failures haunt us today.

During Reagan's second term, when his conservative supporters realized he was not going to live up to their expectations, they blamed moderates, who, they said, were tying his hands. Their deluded mantra was "let Reagan be Reagan." Bush is the living embodiment of that dream of a "real" Reagan. But the figure from the past is a fake, a Freddy Krueger, wearing a mask adorned not with a smile but a twisted grimace. By summoning up the wrong Reagan, Bush has brought to life not an American dream, but an American nightmare.

Bush is now the embarrassing uncle the Republicans just can't hide

August 20, 2007
Bush is now the embarrassing uncle the Republicans just can't hide

For unlike Thatcher or Reagan he sought to achieve his ends not by exploiting division in order to forge a new, more rightwing consensus but rather to exploit new divisions in order to crush a growing consensus. The majority of the country was, for example, pro-choice and in favour of granting equal rights to gay couples in almost all areas. So the Bush administration chose to leverage gay marriage and late-term abortion - two issues that could act as a wedge - to rally his base. Crude in execution and majoritarian in impulse, it sought not to win over new converts but simply to mobilise dormant constituencies. His legacy will be rightwing policies - but not a more rightwing political culture.

That his agenda should have failed so completely should come as no surprise. The project was always, at root, a faith-based initiative. Following the Republican congressional victory in 2002 Rove was asked to comment on the fact that the nation seemed evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. "Something else is going on out there," he said. "Something else more fundamental ... But we will only know it retrospectively. In two years, or four years or six years, [we may] look back and say the dam began to break in 2002."

Bush presidency enters terminal phase

July 4, 2007
Bush presidency enters terminal phase

What the series disclosed, according to the Post's veteran, if endlessly forgiving, political columnist, David Broder, was "a vice president who used the broad authority given him by a complaisant chief executive to bend the decision-making process to his own ends and purposes, often overriding cabinet officers and other executive branch officials along the way".

The series, which provided new grist for the mills of talk-show hosts and comedians who dominate late-night television, served only to further diminish Bush. His approval ratings in successive public opinion polls have now dropped to their lowest level ever and are approaching those of Richard Nixon just before his resignation from office in the wake of the Watergate scandal and his impeachment in 1974.

That the series coincided with Cheney's unprecedented and widely mocked insistence that he did not have to abide by certain secrecy rules because, as president of the Senate, he was not part of the executive branch, only added to the derision leveled against the administration.

Indeed, Cheney's own approval ratings, like Bush's, have dropped to historical lows. Just 28% said they approved of his handling of his job in a CBS News poll taken late last week, down from 35% in early 2006, and a high of 56% in August 2002, the same month that he launched the administration's own campaign to rally support for invading Iraq.

An Administration's Epic Collapse

April 5, 2007
An Administration's Epic Collapse

When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

Not to be rude, but isn't it time Mister Bush just shut up

April 1, 2007
Not to be rude, but isn't it time Mister Bush just shut up

That's all it would take. He needn't make a big production of the disaster or rush in for the big photo-op, handshakes, fake tears, bullhorn proclamations or anything else. The nation doesn't need to hear anymore of his post-disaster lies.

Remember after the terrorist attacks Mister Bush claimed nobody "could have foreseen" terrorists using planes as weapons? Except that on August 6, 2001 the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) highlighted the fact that terrorists might be looking to use planes.... And after Katrina, George W. Bush claimed nobody "could have foreseen" the levies failing. Except that prior to Katrina, his administration had "table-topped" an exercise in which the levies in New Orleans failed. Not to mention years and years of governmental analysis predicting not if, but when the levies would fail.

Besides, it really isn't like anybody is listening to George W. Bush anymore, anyway. Every time he speaks now, Mister Bush only manages to dishonor himself and the Presidency.