bush history major
It's all coming into place. My hope that America would be reminded that the mess our country is in is a direct result of George W. Bush's administration is actually coming true. I know the grand poobahs of the GOP have kept George locked in the basement for almost two years. I was pushing for President Obama and Congress to make a point to tell America that they are trying to clean up the mess they were left with via Bush & Cheney, but they've been ineffective on that front. I've written about it and so have many other bloggers, but who would have thought that it would be Republicans and George Bush himself who would lead the charge?
The Atlantic:
"Monumentally bad timing."
According to former Bush aide Matt Latimer, that's the Republican reaction to the news that former president George W. Bush will release his memoir, Decision Points, the week after the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, the races will be decided by the time the book hits stores, but as with any major print release, a slew of excerpts are sure to be leaked in the weeks prior to Nov. 2. Latimer gives his take on The Daily Beast, reporting on Democrats who are "gleeful" at the news, Republicans who are on the fence about it, and what Bush himself might be thinking:
The former president, who I knew to be an often "misunderestimated" politician, may indeed think his book will help his party--by setting the record straight. (There are parts of that record that can use some plain old Texas clarifyin'.) Undoubtedly some people will look more kindly on the Bush years now than they did at the time, particularly on national security. But the problem is that Bush himself will not be able to make his case before the elections. As with most high-profile books, W. will likely be embargoed from talking until his book is released--far too late to change the minds of any voters.
I love this reaction to the news that the Bush Memoirs are being released in November:
One prominent conservative compared the Bushies'
public-relations savvy to LeBron James.
Last night a fan at a Cleveland/Yankee game had to be escorted out of the stadium because he wore a LeBron Miami Heat jersey in Cleveland. Here's the reaction.
I hope this is the same reaction Americans will have to 'The Bush Book Bomb."
In the meantime, if the Obama administration has their way in the media, the weeks before the election could be about revisiting issues the party still has nightmares about: Why didn't we find WMD in Iraq? Did the Bush administration drop the ball on Afghanistan? What did the administration do to stave off the collapse of our economy? Was Alan Greenspan right that the Bush-led Republicans "deserved to lose"? Not to mention Katrina and "Heckuva job, Brownie" and prisoner-abuse scandals and on and on—discussed by the same cast of characters from Rove to Perino to Gillespie who presided when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama came to power in the first place.
How soon will it be before Rahm Emanuel and James Carville circulate excerpts of Decision Points to major media outlets to get that conversation started? Maybe they'll even co-host the former president's book party.
My hope is that Meet The Press, Face The Nation, FAUX News Sunday, This Week and many others will have George Bush on for a lengthy interview so he can taut his book. Keep your fingers crossed.
At the time President Bush and the GOP Congress enacted massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, in 2001 and 2004, the argument they used was that the government should not have a surplus but should instead give the money back to taxpayers. Every analysis showed that it was not sustainable to keep rates that low for the rich, or the nation faced a sea of red ink a million miles long.Because Bush launched two wars without paying for either (the first time ever in US history), the red ink came very very quickly after the cuts were enacted. Then years of deregulation and greed led to the financial crisis, resulting in yet more red ink. Fortunately, the Obama bailouts have been largely re-paid. But the economy has still not fully recovered and as a result tax revenues remain low.
Yet as we approach the tax debate it is important to remember that the Bush tax cuts were always meant to be temporary. It is also important to remember that wars need to be paid for: even if it's ten years after they were started.
And remember,too, that the wealthy, who have benefited the most from the red ink and economic decline of the Bush years (remember his joke that the super-rich was his base?), need to finally make some sacrifice and actually deal with the mess that President Bush made of our economy and the deficit. They voted for him, they alone benefited from his reckless policies, and they need to man up and pay for what that meant. As Vice President Biden put it, we'll soon find out who the real patriots are. I doubt if that will include many Republicans.
NY Times,: May 14, 2006: 'Temporary' Tax Cuts Have a Way of Becoming Permanent
By ANNA BERNASEK
THINGS that seem temporary can have a sneaky way of becoming permanent. Anyone who's ever bought a home knows how it works. At first there are dozens of fixes you plan to make — that dreadful carpet, those dingy tiles in the bathroom, maybe even a silly door knob. Ten years later, you find yourself still staring at them.
The same may turn out to be true for the Bush administration's tax policies. Passed between 2001 and 2004, the president's major tax policy initiatives were approved on a temporary basis. Of the many changes that were made law, almost every one came with an expiration date, also known as a sunset provision.
Many of the deadlines on these measures have already been extended, some as recently as this week. For others with deadlines later in the decade the lobbying is just getting underway. But as the budget turns a deeper shade of red, it's worth assessing those sunsets once again. They don't make a pretty picture.
LA Times: Bush tax cuts: Keep some, allow others to expire:
Some Republicans argue that tax cuts cause the economy to expand so rapidly that they actually yield more revenue and reduce the deficit. Recent history proves, however, that that is not true; tax cuts don't pay for themselves. The economy may grow faster after a tax cut, but not enough to make up the lost revenue. The country couldn't afford the Bush tax cuts when they were enacted, and it's even less able to afford them now.
Nevertheless, allowing all the cuts to lapse entirely would be too harsh a blow to the economy, because it would drain too much money from consumers' pocketbooks. All together, the cuts — including lower income tax rates, more deductions for high-income taxpayers, lower rates on capital gains and dividends, a phased-out estate tax and larger deductions for married couples, parents, retirement savings and capital spending by businesses — are projected to be worth more than $2.5 trillion over the coming decade, and they affect nearly three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers. A better course for Congress would be to extend the ones that matter most to growth, while letting others expire in the name of deficit reduction.
Time: Democrats to Propose Extending Bush's Middle-Class Tax Cuts
Where the disagreement arises is on what to do about the most affluent taxpayers. Democrats believe that raising taxes on these folks won't change their spending habits and they point to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, a longtime Republican who earlier this week argued that all of Bush's tax cuts should be left to lapse given the massive deficits facing the U.S. Republicans counter with the fairness argument. "Raising the top two brackets would hit 50% of small-business income — the small businesses that the President keeps imploring to create jobs. No wonder they're not doing so," says a senior GOP Senate aide.
Democrats dispute the idea that mom-and-pop small businesses are making more than $200,000 a year. In fact, 94.5% of all "flow-through" entities (self-employed folks, who generally tend to be small businesses, though Tiger Woods also falls into this category) had receipts of under $100,000 in 2007, according to the Tax Policy Center. Likewise, less than 5% of the subchapter-S companies — small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes — made more than $200,000 in 2007. That 5% packs quite a wallop, though, accounting for more than two-thirds of tax receipts in the top two brackets and representing the wealthiest hedge funds, law firms and lobbying outlets in America, all of which file individual or partnership income taxes, according to IRS statistics. (Buy reprints of TIME's political covers.)
Read more: here.
