Bush 43 did his best to dismantle government

Let’s go over this one more time: The Bush 43 Administration was opposed to government.

The Bush-Cheney regime displayed as much contempt for the government with which they were entrusted as the extremists of the current Tea Party movement.
Long time political observers of Washington saw it up close every day…and wondered if the country would survive. It did, but just barely.

I talked about it and wrote about it as often as possible. So did others – and all knew nothing would be done. Why? The Republican machine that preserves the Reagan mystique was in full throttle to protect the Bush Administration from the obvious: they were incompetent.

The saddest fact: Responsible Republicans ignored the misfeasance of the Bush 43 regime, holding fast to the idea that maintaining their ruling influence was more important than serving the people.

Bush 43 propagated EVERY agency of the federal government with individuals who adhered to the philosophy that “the government is best that governs least.” That may have worked in Thomas Jefferson's time when the total population was under 4 million, but it does not work today when the population is 324 million.

A big government is necessary to serve the people in 2010. Anyone who does not agree with that has no interest in seeing government succeed at any level...and thus their motives are suspect.

So what happened during the Bush era? From 2001 to January 2009, regulators were told the free market will make the correct and best decisions. Don’t worry about fulfilling your regulatory duties. They didn’t. For eight years, one federal agency after another was stripped of the funds to support its lawful activities, and populated with individuals who knew they would be rewarded if they did not interfere in the free market or spend money the law charged them to spend in support of citizen needs.

We paid the price for 8 years but veteran observers also knew we would pay the price for many years after Bush 43 left town. We are. It will be many years before we are able to say we have recovered as a nation.

President Obama has made a good start on health care reform, Wall Street reform, immigration reform, energy innovation and climate change. He is not being applauded broadly for his aggressive agenda…but he should be.

We are living in the 21st century. It is time we as a people decide to do something about the problems from the 20th century that we brought with us and have refused to address for a decade.

Can you think of a single American alive today who could do a better job of addressing long neglected issues than this President? Just one??

Bush 43 White House: More Like "The Office."

I have been saying for years that tales of the Bush 43 White House, written upon his retirement from office by his former staff, are going to make your hair curl. Scott McClellan got the ball rolling with his book, What Happened.

Now comes a book by former speech writer, Matt Latimer, Speech Less: Tales of a White House Survivor. In an article I saw this morning, he writes, “In 2007, I finally made it to the Bush White House as a presidential speechwriter. But it was not at all what I envisioned. It was less like Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing and more The Office.”

I have to get this book.

On the other hand, I know already I will not enjoy reading it. I know it will make me sick to learn more of the incompetence of the Bush 43 White House and of the damage Bush/Cheney did to the republic. I think I will buy it and put it on a shelf to read a few years from now.

Higher taxes on higher profit or lower taxes on lower profit?

"I'd rather pay higher taxes on higher profit than lower taxes on lower profit."

That comment by a businessman in today's news sends a clear message to Republicans: "we're not buying the same old line this year." Did you hear that, McPalin team? We are not buying.


I think Americans finally understand the GOP's game. Every four years for at least 44 years, the GOP walks out the same old line: "Vote for us because we will lower your taxes and reduce the size of government. The only problem: they never do. It's a nice promise and they count on the voters with short attention spans and even shorter memories buying it.

I remember when Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller tried to sell it in 1964. Even Nelson Rockefeller, the acknowledged leader of the liberal wing of the Republican Party in the early 1960s was promising not to raise taxes. (Yes, there was a liberal wing of the Republican Party in those days.)

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew tried it, too, in 1968 and 1972 with better success. They even threw in a promise of victory in Vietnam with, "Peace is at hand." (They were smart enough not to say "victory is at hand" as John McCain does today.)

In 1976 Jerry Ford and Bob Dole would have used it to better effect if the aftermath of the Watergate scandal had not cleared the way for Democrats Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale to be elected.

Then came Reagan in 1980. The former Democrat, former actor turned Republican, understood what to do with the old line. He and George H.W. Bush got elected twice on the line. Voters generally have forgotten that Reagan/Bush tripled the national debt as they lowered taxes (because they did nothing to reduce spending) and the size of the government almost doubled on their watch. Oh well, maybe nobody noticed.

Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. He never came remotely close to even thinking about balancing a budget. Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the GOP, paid for his massive expansion of the federal government by pawning off the expense on the next generation. And he used his communication skills to tell us this was all somehow OK.

Bush 41 and Dan Quayle got their chance in 1988 and simply continued the Reagan "borrow and spend" years but Bush made one fatal mistake. He emphatically stated, "Read my lips: no new taxes." He forgot that you are not supposed to lay that sacrosanct campaign tenet in concrete, you are only supposed to promise lower taxes. But those Bush boys were never very good with the English language. When taxes went up and Bush 41 did not veto them, voters turned him out because he could not erase the words he had put in the consciousness of every voter.

Democrat Bill Clinton was the first President since Lyndon Johnson to present a balanced budget to the Congress and the American people. When he left office after two terms of consistent growth and prosperity, he left a $230 billion surplus for the next administration.

In 2000 Bush 43 came into office with his co-president, Dick Cheney (still hard to know who was the real President but that's another blog entry). Bush 43 and Cheney went back to 1964 and picked up the mantra: "we promise you lower taxes and smaller government." And they added, "Who knows better than you how to spend your own money? Certainly not the government." Sounds so sweet, doesn't it? They didn't believe it, of course, but sure thought the electorate would.

The GOP must think we are all infants...or idiots? 91.4 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET GOES TO DEFENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT. The GOP will not speak of these locked in spending items. Only Defense can be called discretionary but the GOP certainly does not see it as discretionary.

It is up to us -- as Sarah Palin likes to say -- to "call them out" when they promise something we and they know they can't deliver and indeed, have no intention to even attempt to deliver.

As Obama says, it's time to declare, "Enough."

The truth is this: The fiscally conservative party has indebted this country since 1980 with a mammoth amount of debt. Bush 43 will leave office on January 20, 2009, having doubled the national debt from 5.4 trillion dollars to 10.6 trillion dollars.

Just typing those record debt numbers is depressing to me. I'm ready for someone who will speak the truth to us, not the tired old mantra of discredited political ideology.

Not one of us wants to pay higher taxes, we just want to pay our fair share of taxes when it is warranted. That is patriotism in action. And we are all patriots -- at least we believe we are -- when we ask government to keep greed in check by regulating financial markets, care for the elderly by providing a small measure of support through Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, pay for the infrastructure that provides safe roads and bridges and levees, secure our borders from those who would do us harm, and most importantly, provide for the common defense. There's more, much more we Democrats AND Republicans expect of our government, but you get the picture. We will pay taxes, we will pay higher taxes if needed, but we insist they be taxes fairly apportioned among the citizens and expended only in ways that are transparent and fully accountable.

To Iraq and To Ruin

I do not have the words to tell you how tired I am of hearing Republicans recite their mantra: "We will cut your taxes and reduce the size of government."

BS

It is not true and they know it. Their only job --and they will quickly tell you it is their only job -- is to convince you that it is true. You only have to...uh, trust them.

Reagan said it and here's what we got in return. During his eight years in office we endured two economic recession, a 20 percent increase in the size of government, and a tripling of the national debt.

Bush 41 said it and the economy was in a shambles by the time he ran for re-election in 1992. Indeed, not even his victory in the first Gulf War -- which was a true victory, not a "Mission Accomplished" fake victory -- could prevent Bill Clinton from cleaning his clock (not even the one Bush 41 was checking during the debates). Remember, "It's the economy, stupid!"

The tremendous economic expansion the country enjoyed during the eight years of Bill Clinton's Presidency had the Republicans chomping at the bit to get back into power and demonstrate they could do the same thing with -- you guessed it -- cutting taxes and reducing the size of government.

Bush 43 sold the same bill of goods to Americans in 2000, and again in 2004, and here is what we got for it: America's first pre-emptive strike on another sovereign nation, a war fought on fraudulent pretenses, destabilization of world economies, record prices for oil and gasoline at the pump, abdication of federally mandated oversight of financial markets -- among a long list of dubious, indeed, disgraceful, "accomplishments."

But the most telling is the realization that Bush 43 will leave office having more than DOUBLED the national debt, from 5.5 trillion dollars on the day he came into office to 11.6 trillion dollars (if the current Wall Street bailout package is approved

If you hear another Republican repeat that old saw, "We just want to cut your taxes and reduce the size of government and that'll make your life better," you should shout, "ARE YOU CRAZY?" and run for the nearest exit as fast as your legs will carry you.

And yes, Bush 43 will always be remembered in the history books as "The President who took America to Iraq and to ruin."