SharedThought

From the Washington Post:

Leaders of the House intelligence committee have criticized the U.S. intelligence community for using largely outdated, “circumstantial” and “fragmentary” information with “too many uncertainties” to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.

This is a Republican committee, made up of a majority of Republicans, and chaired, of course, by a Republican.

And yesterday we heard that while the rich are enjoying their tax cuts and getting richer, the number of Americans living below the poverty level increased and the median income level fell.

Median household cash income, the level at which half of Americans earn more money and half earn less, fell 1.1 percent, to $42,409 in 2002, from $42,900 the year before. Annual median household cash income, which excludes non-cash payments such as food stamps or housing subsidies, peaked in 1999 at $43,915, and has dropped since then by 3.4 percent.

Gee, what happened? Oh, I remember. The Supreme Court chose George Bush as president in 2000.

Throughout the evolution of the buildup and prosecution of the latest war in Iraq, what has escaped comprehension is how President Bush has been able to ignore all the evidence contrary to his rationale for this ‘preemptive’ attack. Last night all became clear. Ted Koppel was interviewing former Marine Corps Four Star General Anthony Zinni on Nightline. During this program, mention was made of the fact that our president does not read the newspaper! An excerpt from the end of a September 22, 2003 interview with Britt Hume of Fox News, included below, that reads to that effect.
The question, how can Mr. Bush continue to trumpet the same policy line over and over; weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, terrorists, September 11; seemingly without regard for the evidence and the changing political and military climate in and outside of the US, has finally been answered. I quote, “I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are(sic) probably read the news themselves…the most objective sources I have are people on my staff…” Actually, by definition, the most objective sources are precisely NOT those people.
Apparently, Mr. Bush’s Yale education did not include Roman history. Had it, he would be all too well aware of the dangers of listening solely to your inner circle. (Insert name of any emperor, say Constantine, and do just a little research on how a few voices can manipulate a leader like a puppet)
That our president hasn’t the time nor the inclination to read for himself from the media really comes as no surprise. From his evident lack of expertise with the spoken language, it would indicate that he has not ever been much of a reader. Frankly, it is frightening that the most powerful leader in the world has his news spoon-fed to him by policy wonks, neo-conservative oil money hawks, and career politicians. This same man launches tirades against his staff for not unquestioningly falling into lock step with the party line. What is the upside, for a staffer, of trying to change his mind by telling him the truth?
Our president is out of touch with reality, insulated by a staff that is steering the United States into bankruptcy and perpetual war, their true agenda clouded by hyperbole and rhetoric. This administration must be removed from power. Mr. Bush’s policies threaten our very way of life to a much greater extent than any terrorist attack.
Please read the entire interview. It drags on and on, but soon you will start to wonder to yourself, “This has to be some kind of joke, right? This can’t be the actual text of an interview with a president, can it?” You may be assured, however, that the link below will take you to the complete, unadulterated text at foxnews.com. The interview was done by Fox, reported on Fox, and posted on Fox.
Judge for yourself.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98006,00.html

HUME: How do you get your news?
BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you’ve got a beautiful face and everything.
I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.
HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you’ve…
BUSH: Practice since day one.
HUME: Really?
BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there’s opinions mixed in with news. And I…
HUME: I won’t disagree with that, sir.
BUSH: I appreciate people’s opinions, but I’m more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.
HUME: Mr. President, thank you very much.
BUSH: Thank you, sir.

If you have read the whole interview, I rest my case.

Yesterday’s post about President Bush’s speech to the United Nations, marks the debut of a new author on this site. Chris knows his stuff, and has been publishing material by a mailing list for over a year now. Chris doesn’t know it, but his outspoken stance against the administration’s war (and build up to war) in Iraq is what inspired me to start this website last Spring. Chris will publish whenever his schedule allows, and on whatever topic he chooses. I think everyone (except for maybe Therapy Sessions) will enjoy reading his stuff. Please give him a warm welcome.

This morning was the opening of the 58th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Leaders of several countries spoke for a few moments each. Among them were His Excellency Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, His Excellency Mr. George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, and His Excellency Mr. Jacques Chirac, President of the French Republic. (The honorifics are directly from the UN website) I can only imagine how W must have felt being addressed as His Excellency. A dream come true, no doubt. What was most noteworthy about the remarks in general was the tenor of each speaker’s delivery.
Mr. De Silva spoke fervently and eloquently of international cooperation and multi-lateralism, worldwide improvement of the human condition, and peace as social justice. He outlined projects undertaken in Brazil to better the lives of their poor and disenfranchised.
Mr. Chirac additionally stressed the global vision of the United Nations and its unique position as a forum for discussion and resolution of international political, economic, and humanitarian problems which plague today’s societies. His speech was also one of conviction and deliberation of thought.
Mr. Bush’s remarks were a true disappointment to this humble listener. He opened with an account, once again the attacks of September 11, 2001. He followed up by citing Saddam Hussein as backer of terrorists accompanied by the specious claim of his possession weapons of mass destruction. (Who gave him those weapons again?)His remarks at times read like a junior high school student’s essay, which, required to be of a certain length, contained lists of locations and facts designed to fill out his allotted time. His general message was not one of vision, but of retribution, and was barely underlain with a spirit of venality. He did not extend an open hand to the world, but a closed fist. He attacked the proliferation of weapons of mass murder, while the US is in the process of designing newer and more horrible such devices. He outlined a philosophy oriented toward destruction, not construction. His opportunity today to lift the United States in the eyes of the world community was a wasted one. A leader without a truly positive vision for the future cannot help but lead us to the opposite.

I close with two quotes. The first, from Mohandas Gandhi, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” The second, from John Boyes, “Violence in the voice is often only the death rattle of reason in the throat.”

The Washington Post has an article today talking about how the Bush administration is taking another look at the steel tariffs they imposed in early 2002. According to the article the tariffs, which were intended to help Bush carry Pennsylvania and West Virginia in 2004, have actually cost him support in Tennessee and Michigan. Yikes! It turns out that autoworkers and manufacturers believe that the 30% jump in steel prices has led to the loss of manufacturing jobs. While jobs have been created in the steel industry, many more have been lost in manufacturing. I guess Bush was correct when he uttered this Bushism:

“Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the world: Markets must be open.” — Swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Washington, D.C., March 2, 2001

While the tariffs probably did lead to the creation of steel jobs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, I doubt they had much to do with the loss of manufacturing jobs in Michigan and Tennessee. They would have been lost in any case. That has more to do with NAFTA and the continuing trend of moving manufacturing jobs abroad.

This does set up the interesting scenario that everbody may end up pissed off. The steelworkers union already didn’t give Bush a sought-after endorsement (that went to Gephardt) and if his administration reverses course and removes the tariffs on steel they’ll be pissed at the likely loss of jobs. Manufacturers and workers in the midwest are mad now and likely to remain so as they’ll probably still be facing losses due to overseas competition–even if the tariffs are removed.

The Bush administration has consistently argued that the September 11 attacks are responsible for the sluggish economy and increasing budget deficits. As recently as September 6 when president Bush discussed the economy in Indianapolis, the attacks were being blamed. Here’s what the President said:

Let me remind you of what we’ve been through. The attacks on America cost us about $80 billion. That’s a lot of money. The attacks hurt our economy at a time when we were beginning to recover from a recession. In March of 2000, the stock market started to decline. Investors began to realize, well maybe the economy wasn’t quite as strong as it had been in the past. And we were in recession in the first quarters of 2001. We had negative growth. People were beginning to look for work. Things weren’t good.

But the economy became to come back because we actually passed a really good tax bill out of the Congress. And then the enemy hit us, and it hurt. It hurt economically; it hurt the nation’s psyche to think that we were vulnerable to cold-blooded killers who could come and in one day take the lives of thousands of innocent people.

It’s not clear what was included in the $80 billion cost the President was referring to. If that’s total economic impact, then that represents about 0.4% of the GDP over the last two years. Even if he’s referring to the portion of the federal deficit over the last two fiscal years that is attributable to the attacks, then the impact on the roughly $560 billion in deficits is a relatively small 14.3%. As the Economic Policy Institute points out, the economic impact of the attacks has been relatively slight.

[UPDATE: See this link for Angry Bear's breakdown of the costs of 9/11 using numbers supplied by the CBO--ST 9/19/03]

Angry Bear has also done some calculations and come up with an estimate allocating the source of the current deficits:

Of the 80% of the deficit not related to terrorism, roughly 1/3 of the blame goes to increased spending and 2/3 to the Bush tax cuts.

According to figures gathered by Angry Bear, under president Bush federal spending is up over 20% of GDP (In Clinton’s last budget the figure was 18.6%), while revenues are down to 16%. The difference will have to be borrowed. That’s right, Republicans have become the borrow and spend party.

I heard about the latest Zogby poll on NPR last week. They pointed out both Reagan and Carter were polling similarly at this point in their administrations. Carter lost in a lopsided fashion, but Reagan was elected in a 49 state landslide the next year.

The news that Howard Dean is poised to select Wesley Clark as his VP running mate seems a bit premature to me. Clark is supposed to be announcing his decision on whether or not he will run for the Presidency within the next week. Although it’s hard to believe, it is probably too late for him to jump into the game on his own. I can’t imagine that he would accept an invitation to join Dean’s ticket (nor would Dean likely extend one) until the nomination has been decided. But it makes for a great story now.

This is what I would like to remember.

I’ve been engaged in a little exchange with Therapy Sessions regarding to what extent President Bush is responsible for the weak economic recovery we are experiencing.

Therapy Sessions pointed out that job creation is one of the last elements of a recovery. I agree. However, never before has employment lagged this long. The recovery started in 2001 and is in its 9th quarter without any job growth. In fact, more than a million additional jobs have been lost during the recovery. The other factor that will hamper this recovery, as opposed to the Clinton recovery, is the weight of the growing budget deficits. The higher interest rates that will inevitably result will be a continuing drag on the economy.

Therapy Sessions says it is a myth that the president controls the economy. I respectfully disagree. After all it is not my original thought to hold the president accountable for the current economic environment. Republicans spent almost a generation blaming Jimmy Carter for the nation’s economic woes. In fact some Republican groups found time away from Whitewater and Vince Foster conspiracy theories to attack the weakness of the “Clinton Recovery.” I find that a bit ridiculous when you consider the facts.

But I don’t give all the credit for the 90s expansion to Clinton. I think a great deal of the credit should go to George H.W. Bush. It was his tax increases and spending restraints in 1990 that laid the foundation for the later growth. The spending restraints, referred to as PAYGO (pay as you go) required OMB to identify spending offsets or revenue increases for any new legislative proposal. The increased taxes and spending restraints began bearing fruit when the economic recovery started in the spring of 1991, too late to earn George H.W. Bush a second term.

Clinton took office with an economic recovery already underway, but to his credit he stuck to what was already working. The policies that he pursued played to the bond market. Influenced by Leon Panetta and Alan Greenspan, Clinton pursued balanced budgets over spending programs. These policies led to the first budget surplus in over 30 years. With government finances in order, private enterprise had greater access to capital. In that healthy financial environment, the United States had the longest economic recovery in its history. Clinton deserves credit for this.

In contrast, when George W. Bush took office the economy was at the tail end of the recovery. It did not enter a recession until after he took office, and I don’t think he should be blamed for that. However, what he has done in response to the recession he should be held accountable for. During the campaign he promised tax cuts and balanced budgets. In office and faced with a recession, he delivered on the tax cuts but at the same time increased spending. And then faced with homeland security issues, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a lame economic recovery he again increased spending and cut taxes. As a result we have a job-loss recovery and a record federal deficit. So Therapy Sessions is right. I think George Bush deserves to be blamed for this.