Tuesday, July 1, 2008


Obama Should Do What Bush Did

Here's hoping Obama follows George Bush's example as President.

Campaign as a centrist, moderate, new kind of politican, then turn around and govern to the far extreme of his own party.

(Although what the MSM labels "extreme left" is actually the real "center" because it's what the majority of Americans have been telling pollsters they want for a couple of decades now.)

I'm fine with Obama playing nice with the DINOs and Blue Dogs right up through November 4, as long as first thing in the morning November 5, he tells them:

"Thanks for your votes, bitches; now sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up."

I want to hear an Inaugural Address that demolishes Reagan/Bush America in a single blow. I want Obama to announce:

  • Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq
  • Eliminate Aid to Pakistan Until They Cough Up Bin Laden
  • Get Reparations from Saudi Arabia for 9-11 (15 of 19 terrorists, remember?)
  • Single-Payer Health Insurance
  • Double the Minimum Wage
  • Promote Unionization
  • Progressive Taxation - Soak the Rich
  • Repeal NAFTA and CAFTA
  • Repeal Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, FISA and every other law that infringes on civil liberties
  • Restore the Clean Air, Clean Water and Superfund Acts and fully fund their implementation
  • $1 Trillion Crash Program to Rebuild Nation's Infrastructure
  • $1 Trillion Crash Program to Replace Fossil Fuels with Renewables (Not Nuclear)
  • Outlaw Vote ID requirements
  • Cancel the Drug War and use the money to create 10 million treatment beds.
  • Eliminate Aid to Israel until they abandon all the West Bank settlements and cut a land-for-peace deal with the Palestinians.

And I almost forgot:

  • Arrest George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, and Alberto Gonzales, charge them with treason, convict their guilty asses and throw them in a SuperMax prison for the rest of eternity.

I want Obama to lean on Congress so hard he makes the Full Johnson seem like an air kiss. I want him to make Blue Dogs such pariahs that even lobbyists won't speak to them. I want him to appoint federal judges so liberal they make Dennis Kucinich look conservative. I want Antonin Scalia's head to explode. I want Samuel Alito sobbing in despair on national television. I want Clarence Thomas to get "race traitor" tattooed on his forehead.

If Obama does all that, I'll forgive him every stupid, self-destructive, un-democratic campaign pander.

That's hypocrisy I can get behind.

(No, I don't think Obama's going to announce all that, much less actually do it. But I am sure he's going to get miles closer to those goals than McCain would.)

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.




There's more: "Obama Should Do What Bush Did" >>

Monday, June 16, 2008


Another Disaster, Another Bush Vacation

Subhead from an ABC News article:

The businesslike traveler turns tourist: Bush soaks in Europe like only a president can
Also from ABC News:
He said his thoughts and prayers are with flood victims back home. "I know there's a lot of people hurting right now."
Seems aWol is on another vacation while parts of America are underwater. Upon his return, perhaps he can repeat the political theater of New Orleans following Katrina:

He could replay his speech from Jackson Square using Mays Island as a backdrop.


And he could pull firefighters and National Guard members away from relief efforts for a photo-op.




There's more: "Another Disaster, Another Bush Vacation" >>

Thursday, May 22, 2008


More and Better Democrats

This is just...oh, I don't know. Embarrassing is too tame. Frustrating, certainly. Disgusting? Still not strong enough. Aggravating...

WASHINGTON - The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassment for Democrats.

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House.

That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions that the eventual law would be unconstitutional. Republicans objected when Democrats proposed passing the missing section separately and sending that to Bush.
Bush has only used 10 vetoes, and Congress has only once been able to override a veto. Perhaps it's time to elect some new Democrats.

[cross-posted at Lost Chord]




There's more: "More and Better Democrats" >>

Wednesday, May 14, 2008


Shrub reaches new level of callousness over Iraq

“I gave up golf to support the troops.” How incredibly tin-eared is that?

It’s no wonder that the Glenn Reynolds, the Mark Hindrakersrockets and other generals of the Fighting 101st Keyboards sit back in the laptops of luxury — they’re taking orders from the top.

What next? Give up mocha lattes at Starbucks? Montecristo cigars? Courvoisier XO?

My heart bleeds, W.




There's more: "Shrub reaches new level of callousness over Iraq" >>

Friday, March 21, 2008


Ramping up the rhetoric

As the sand slips through the hourglass, the fear that aWol might not get to start another war with Iran is palpable and his rhetoric becomes increasingly shrill and disconnected from reality.

On Wednesday, Bush conducted an interview with the U.S. government run Farsi-language Radio Farda to mark the Iranian New Year. In that interview, Bush asserted that Iran has openly "declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people." He also insisted that the Iranian government might be hiding a secret program (in spite of a total lack of evidence to support the allegation.)

There is just one problem - it's pure unadulterated bullshit. A veritable tour de farce.

Iran has never staked any such claim, or even stated on the record a desire for nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The Iranian government has been quite adamant and insisting that the uranium enrichment program that it currently operates in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions is for civilian power plants, not warheads.

Bush repeated his position that Iran has a right to civilian nuclear power, but insists that they should get the low-enrichment fuel from Russian rather than conduct their own refinement, but Tehran has repeatedly rejected that option. "The problem is the (Iranian) government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because one, they've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now. Who knows?" said Bush. "Secondly, they've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people, some in the Middle East. And that is unacceptable to the United States and it's unacceptable to the world." (emphasis added.)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Iran has denied repeatedly that the country seeks nuclear warheads, and in 2005, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a religious edict forbidding the "production, stockpiling and use of such weapons."

Shortly after the White House released the transcript of the interview on Thursday, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe was on the hotseat and spinning so furiously that he threatened to generate his own gravitational field, dismissing the presidents remarks as "shorthand" for comments allegedly made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the "World Without Zionism" conference in 2005, where he supposedly, by one translation of his remarks, stated his desire to see Israel "wiped off the map." People who actually speak Farsi have said unequivocally that the comments that this administration is determined to hang their "bomb Iran" policy from are vague and should not be interpreted as a threat to use force against Israel.

As their grip slips, as they lose control of the message, their desperation grows by leaps and bounds. The thoroughly diseased, discredited and debunked Neocon/PNAC political philosophy and agenda rooted in arrogance and hubris that has brought our country to the brink of disaster is increasingly viewed as an uncomfortable embarrassment to the less stupid among the craven fucks who subscribed to it. The few die-hards remaining are the most dangerous of the lot - all that is left are the cornered animals. And the psychotic desperation - and flat-out, pathological delusions - of the worst president ever grow every day. It's time to put impeachment back on the table.




There's more: "Ramping up the rhetoric" >>

Friday, February 8, 2008


Oh my God! I finally get it!

Remember when aWol, a while back, sparked outrage by comparing himself to Truman?

People, he was right and we were wrong. We just had the wrong Truman in mind.

He is this Truman.

It hit me like a ton of bricks when I checked in on my friend Steve Benen this morning and read this...

It’s been more than seven years, but I still laugh when I look back at this classic satirical item from The Onion, in which George W. Bush assured the nation that “our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.”

“My fellow Americans,” Bush said (in this fake-news item), “at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.”

Of course, this piece, written four days before Bush’s first inaugural, proved to be rather prophetic. But in the meantime, whenever I see or hear references to “peace and prosperity,” I think of The Onion, and the strength and success Bush squandered.

I was reminded of it again this morning, listening to Bush’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

“My energy is up, my spirit is high, and I will finish strong. And in the meantime, we will elect a new President. We’ve had good debates and soon we’ll have a nominee who will carry a conservative banner into this election and beyond. Listen, the stakes in November are high. This is an important election. Prosperity and peace are in the balance.”

Really? Does George W. Bush seriously want to argue that the nation should follow his direction in order to maintain “prosperity and peace”?

Where is this elusive “prosperity and peace”? And why is it hiding so well?
There is only one explanation - the bubble is opaque, and soundproof. It is a controlled and scripted environment and he is cluelessly performing for an audience, oblivious to the outside world.

Just like Truman.




There's more: "Oh my God! I finally get it!" >>

Thursday, January 24, 2008


At the end of the day

FISA & telecom immunity -- We will live to fight another day. However, Claire McCaskill sold the Bill of Rights for pocket change. Expect some unpleasant repercussions come re-election time.

Democrats unite! -- Hillary: "As soon as we have a nominee, we will be strongly united because the most important thing is to put a Democrat in the White House starting in January 2009." What did Obama say? The better question is what didn't he say? Read Jane Hamsher from last night.

GOP voters don't seem too excited about the elections. For analysis and numbers, Down With Tyranny!

Dennis Kucinich gives up on the WH. "He was regularly shut out of presidential debates - even after he went to the courts to seek airtime in Las Vegas.... ...commentators have given Kucinich credit for giving a greater airing to anti-war sentiment." We still love you, Dennis!

Krugman evaluated the economic stimulus program and it's not pretty. Robert Greenstein at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that "the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders."

Anti-Abortionists MIA -- Republicans say they're pro-life but they don't show up for the Big March. How convenient.

Hate crimes slimebag -- During the Jena march, a "white man accused of driving past a group of black civil rights activists with two nooses dangling from the back of his pickup truck" was indicted for "conspiring to threaten and intimidate the marchers and with having committed a federal hate crime."

Fighting torture could land 11 activists in the federal pen for as much as six months. The Nation

"Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq" -- "American-backed Sunni militias who have fought Sunni extremists to a standstill in some of Iraq’s bloodiest battlegrounds are being hit with a wave of assassinations and bomb attacks, threatening a fragile linchpin of the military’s strategy to pacify the nation." Intel Dump offered further insights, particularly on the political front: "I think that Crocker and Petraeus have written off the Iraqi government at all levels as too corrupt and ineffective to be a part of the long-term counterinsurgency strategy in that country."

Afghanistan backslides -- The warlords shall rise again! See how invading Iraq diverted our forces from the right war at the wrong time?

Et tu, media? -- The honeymoon must be wearing off. Via Kevin Drum, yesterday Obama got some of the same type of media B.S. that was dumped on Hillary today. With enough time -- and it doesn't take long -- media svengalis could transform Barack into a divisive figure (jpg) like they have Clinton. This is how our morally-bankrupt press corp screws America (h/t Taylor Marsh for the jpg).

Bush legacy scrutiny -- An advocacy group "plans to spend $8.5 million" on advertising Bush's failed presidency. "Framing his legacy helps us in the '08 elections, there is no doubt about that," Woodhouse said. "But our principal mission would be defining the failures of Bush and the ideology he represents." Swopa

[That's all...no more after the jump.]




There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Monday, January 7, 2008


And He's Off

"Ah'm headin' over tuh that there middle east to make a bigger mess. It'll be the next preznet's problem, heh heh heh."

REUTERS/Larry Downing

President Bush is about to embark on his first major trip to the long-troubled Middle East region. The man's been president for 7 years and been engaged in a regional war for six. And yet, this is his first major trip to the area. Just how serious is aWol about peace in the Middle East?

Bush is visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories, plus Arab allies Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He said he will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to make "tough decisions on complex questions" so an elusive peace deal could be reached.

"I am optimistic about the prospects," Bush said.

His advisers, however, have all but ruled out a three-way meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders during the trip, dampening any thoughts that the president's personal diplomacy would yield a concrete peace accord at this time.




There's more: "And He's Off" >>

Bush on the Economy: LIAR

Original photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Friday's news was not good: The Labor Department reported December's new jobs were the smallest monthly gain since 2003. Oil prices topped $100 per barrel for the first time. The housing slump continues. The Dow dropped for the third straight day.

But in BushWorld, both the economy and financial markets are still strong.
'This economy of ours is on a solid foundation, but we can't take economic growth for granted and there are signs that cause us to be ever more diligent to make sure that good policies come out of Washington,' Bush said today at the White House, after meeting for the first time with the president's working group on financial markets.
How much longer can aWol's nose grow?




There's more: "Bush on the Economy: LIAR" >>

Sunday, December 30, 2007


Reality Check

December 30, 2007 is the 2,301st day since 9/11 and the man who ordered the massacre is still at large.

Independent Television News

Meanwhile, 3,901 American soldiers have died in the Iraq war.
Associated Press/Richard Lui

“Nothing,”
— George W. Bush, responding to Cox News reporter Ken Herman's asking what Iraq had to do with 9/11, August 21, 2006




There's more: "Reality Check" >>

Bush Guts Constitution, Again

"In other words, I jez set aside th'
consteetushun an' do whut I want."
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

"Whaddaya mean I caint do that?"
REUTERS/Larry Downing

"Ah donwanna play preznent no more."
AP Photo/Ron Edmonds

GW Bush continues his crusade to gut the US Constitution, this time by claiming the Senate is in adjournment when it is not.

On Friday (12/28), Bush announced a "pocket veto" of H.R. 1585:
The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.


Bush is claiming this is a "pocket veto," as defined in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. The President must either sign or veto a legislative bill within 10 days of its delivery to him, "unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return...."

Congress has not adjourned. The Senate has remained in session over the holiday break. In fact, the most recent pro forma session was Friday (12/28).

Congress delivered H.R. 1585 to Bush on Wednesday, December 19th. The Constitution exempts Sundays from the 10 day period. The ten days aren't up until (at least) Monday, December 31st. Bush has until then to attach his signature to his veto (an affirmative veto) or the bill becomes law.

Why is this important? Because Bush is flat out claiming the Senate's pro forma sessions do not mean what the Constitution says they mean -- Congress is still in session; Congress has not adjourned. And if that is accepted, then Bush can make recess appointments.

But wait! There's more! H.R. 1585 contains several provisions for veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, including a 3.5% pay raise, effective Jan. 1, 2008. The bill authorizes additional assistance for military families, retirement pay, disability pay, etc. Oh, and it authorizes $150.91 billion for appropriations for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How exactly is Bush supporting the troops here?

George W. Bush is vetoing this bill. He just doesn't want to actually put his signature to that veto, claiming Congress is preventing him from doing so, and thus ignoring the U.S. Constitution. Again.

[hat tip to Kagro X]




There's more: "Bush Guts Constitution, Again" >>

Tuesday, November 27, 2007


Talking about troop levels

On Monday, the agreement was struck between the United States and Iraq that the U.N. mandated occupation of that beleaguered nation should end in December 2008, and that any continued troop presence beyond that time be subject to negotiations between the two governments that will take place in the upcoming summer months. The agreement was signed by both Maliki and Bush in a teleconference on Monday.

In Iraq, Maliki will be able to spin it as Iraq beginning to show a modicum of independence, while in Washington, Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the NSC, waved off the development, saying he was confident that an agreement would be reached that would authorize continuing the American occupation.

The agreement signed yesterday could potentially set some limits on American troop levels and in what capacity the American military could operate inside Iraq.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Iraqi officials will use the new agreement to set the number of U.S. troops that will remain in the country and their mission. He described the U.S.-Iraq military relationship as "very bumpy over the last three to four years."

Zebari said the new negotiations will provide benefits for both countries.

For Iraq, he said, "it means a clear definition of the relationship and also some security guarantees that the U.S. will protect the political system and constitution until we build our forces and troops.

For the U.S., he said, "it will be a way to do the drawdown and troop reduction and to relieve the pressure back home."

I'm not overly optimistic that this actually, you know, means anything.

Everyone knows that the Maliki government is going to negotiate the deal that aWol will demand. His government is a U.S. backed puppet regime, and it would not exist without the U.S. military presence. He may not be happy about the American military in his country, but he has already done the exile bit and will play along to avoid either exile or assassination. And I am cynical enough to believe that the deal the petulant [p]resident negotiates will be contingent on who the nominees are and who is polling ahead.



[That's all, folks...]




There's more: "Talking about troop levels" >>

Friday, August 24, 2007


Stop It! Stop It RIGHT NOW!!!!!

Republicans do NOT own national security. Republicans have NOT made the nation more secure than it was prior to 9-11-01. And it's time for Democrats to NOT run for cover worrying how to respond to a national security threat because said Democrats believe such a threat will only help Republicans.

Why bring this up now? Because a Democrat running for president just perpetuated the myths above:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.
STOP THIS MADNESS! The Democrat "best positioned" to deal with GOP political efforts to claim National Security Superiority in a post-attack environment is the one who isn't reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting hundreds, if not thousands, of American deaths as a political advantage for the Republicans.

Every Democrat running for or in office needs to blame the failures of Bush's national security policies on Bush's (and hence, the GOP's) failed policies.

Leading Democrats need to begin LEADING! America is NOT safer because of Bush. America is NOT better off because of Bush. The vast majority of Americans know this. Why do so few Congressional Democrats?

Stop it. Stop it RIGHT NOW!!!!!!




There's more: "Stop It! Stop It RIGHT NOW!!!!!" >>

Wednesday, August 22, 2007


Maliki can't catch a break

Don't you just hate it when such a cute couple hits the skids? Just the other day they were so devoted. Then one of them is caught crawling into bed with Iran, probably out of retaliation for the other one arming those Sunni militants.(Here we should probably remind the first one that it has not been that long ago that their paramour didn't even know there was more than one kind of Muslim, and do they need to be reminded that they fell for a dumbass?)

As the curtain falls on their relationship, it is easy to grow wistful. It was just last November, when they appeared side by side in Jordan, having renewed their vows and aWol pledged his fidelity. Nuri Kamal al-Maliki was “the right guy for Iraq” aWol gushed back then.

That was then.

Now, the relationship is on the rocks, and aWol is moving away. By the close of business on Tuesday, there was a lot of daylight between aWol and his BFF Nuri. Speaking at a meeting of north American leaders in Canada, he admitted publicly to “a certain level of frustration" with Mr. Maliki's ability to move the political process forward, and chiding him with the admonition that "American support doesn't come with a blank check."

He is practicing that time-honored Republican tradition of "shifting the blame. " Facing stiff opposition on continuing the occupation of Iraq, both among Democrats and Republicans, he is starting the process of blaming the invaded and occupied for their miserable lot. ("We did all we could, but those ungrateful Iraqis just had no interest in doing anything for them selves!")

Bush made his remarks just hours after Ambassador Ryan Crocker in Baghdad called the political progress "extremely disappointing" and told reporters that stabilizing the country would require reconciliation among rival factions. "There's not a strong sense anywhere, really, of the central government being present and active in making conditions in Iraq better," Crocker said at a news briefing. "They've got to do more of that."Neither Bush not Crocker went as far as Carl Levin did when he called for the ouster of Maliki, but Bush did not offer his usual endorsement, either. Instead, when asked about Maliki's future as Prime Minister, he said "If the government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government."




There's more: "Maliki can't catch a break" >>

Tuesday, August 21, 2007


The Package?

President Bush, today in Canada:

There's all kinds of speculation about the size of the package, this, that and the other.





There's more: "The Package?" >>

Thursday, August 9, 2007


Infrastructure Matters

Last week, we got a stark reminder of the cost of war when the I-35 West collapsed in Minneapolis, dumping commuters and construction workers into the Mississippi River.

Now calm down – the bridge didn’t collapse because of the war, and I am not saying it did. I am saying that we have some totally screwed up spending priorities.

Consider that the war is costing $150 Billion dollars a year, or about $3 Billion per week. $150 Billion dollars could repair 600 bridges a year.

Infrastructure matters. Without sound infrastructure, the economy is at risk. Highways are deteriorating, bridges are crumbling, the electric grid is teetering, ports are not secure, and we all saw two years ago this month that the levee system is unreliable.

The Resident was mindful of the post-Katrina flap when he went to Minneapolis and pledged the money to rebuild the bridge. And that’s all well and good. But then today, as he headed off to yet another vacation, the Leisure President denounced a hike in the gas tax to repair infrastructure.

“Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities,” Mr. Bush said.

“My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place,” he added, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns — or plum projects — above such national concerns as bridge conditions.

Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska and a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has raised the possibility of increasing the gasoline tax as a way to pay for bridge repairs throughout the country in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, which raised new concerns about potential problems with a number of the nation’s bridges. A plan being considered by the House committee would index the current gasoline tax for inflation, which would result in an increase of roughly 5 cents.

Sweet Jeebus…he wants everyone else to reevaluate priorities? While bridges fall down and levees fail and people perish? But he won’t even consider reevaluating his pet war?




There's more: "Infrastructure Matters" >>

Monday, August 6, 2007


57 Sheep


Fifty-seven Democratic senators and representatives said "BAH" to our civil rights last week. Dubya sings a little ditty in celebration.




There's more: "57 Sheep" >>

Tuesday, July 31, 2007


Debunking a presidential budget myth

Everyone is focused on September right now – as well they should be – but everyone is focusing on a portion (Iraq) of the big picture.



The real fight is about the budget for FY 2008, which starts on 01 October. Let’s be kind in our assessment, and just say that the administration certainly seems to be embracing magical thinking where the nation’s checkbook is concerned. You see, if we aren’t kind, we have to say that the president is lying his ass off and pushing malicious propaganda. (The latter is likely true, but we are feeling inexplicably magnanimous tonight. If it persists, I'll get checked out.)


Last Thursday the president spoke to the American Legislative Exchange Council in Philadelphia, and his speech was so far divorced from reality that, frankly, it left me wondering what exactly was the combination of drugs he was enjoying at the time? I mean, the BS is so easily debunked that it seems like they aren't even trying any longer.


He boasted that he had overseen a budget deficit that has been declining in recent years, and that his policies would realize a surplus by FY12.


Problem is, he forgot a couple of really, really salient facts. (Or maybe they are inconvenient so he committed an intentional sin of omission?)


If he is going to take credit for reducing the deficit, he has to admit that he created it. Prior to his administration, there were four consecutive budget-surplus years, with a forecast of $5.6 trillion in continuing surpluses. This robust economic forecast was the justification for the Bush tax cuts, but even after the surpluses were revealed to be imaginary, massive, record-high deficit spending continued unabated. (Never before have we cut taxes in time of war.)


Additionally, the word “debt” never fell from his lips during the entire speech. He either doesn’t realize, or again opted to willfully omit, that while the deficit is falling, the debt is climbing. In fact, his term in office will realize a $3 trillion increase in the national debt.


But it gets better! He said we have a responsibility to fix our problems! It wouldn’t be fair to pass these problems off "to future Congresses or future generations." All the while ignoring that the interest payments on the debt will be crippling for the next three decades, thanks to that $3 trillion dollars added to the debt. Oh – I almost forgot! There is a hell of a lot of short-term borrowing that is coming due and we don’t have the cash to satisfy the debt. So we have to refinance. (We all know someone who got in trouble with a payday loan that took on a life of its own. This is like that, only on a national scale and its trillions instead of hundreds.) The ghost of the George Bush presidency is going to haunt this nation for years to come.


When he bragged that the current (FY 2007) deficit would be "lower than the national average over the last 10 years."


There is only one way to make that statement true: omit the years FY98-01 and still call it a decade. When FY98-01 are included, the average deficit drops to 0.9% of GDP, but the number that the president cited for FY08 was significantly higher, 1.5% GDP.


Translation: He wasn’t really saying this years deficit represents the lowest percentage of GDP in a decade, it will just be lower than any of the six consecutive deficits he has presided over. (Doesn’t sound quite so sexy that way, though, does it?)


He went far afield and insisted that congress should send him budget appropriations individually, not in a combined omnibus spending bill, and not in the form of continuing resolutions, but individual appropriations bills. (This has never been asked before, and is quite baffling in the petulant audacity it takes to even ask.) Not once in the past six years has the White House expressed any concern whatsoever Interesting, given that FY01, 03, 04, and 05 were all funded by omnibus spending bills, and the entire government has operated on continuing resolutions this year, FY07, because the republican rubber-stamp 109th congress failed to pass a budget.


But the coup de grace was the proclamation that the Congress was obligated to, “in a time of war” pass the Pentagon budget before the August Recess! (Isn’t there something happening in September that makes that suggestion especially galling?)


Out understanding is not so stunted as the president prefers to think it is, apparently. For instance, we know that the fiscal year does not start until 01 October, and that any funds appropriated for FY 2008 now would not be available for dispersal until then, no matter when the Pentagon appropriations are passed! His petulant, pandering insistence is disingenuous at best. Or maybe he just forgot…

His credibility on this issue is suspect in any case. Over the past six years, Congress has adopted the Pentagon appropriation by the start of the summer recess only once (FY05). Twice (FY04 and 07) it was enacted in the last days of September. Three times (FY02, 03 and 06) it was enacted well after the fiscal year began. At no time during this period did the White House ever call on Congress to adopt the bill beforethe August recess or criticize it for not getting the work done before the fiscal year began.

Also casting a cloud on his credibility is his complete and utter refusal to criticize the Iraqi parliament for taking an August recess. Again he strikes a disingenuous pose. That “time of war” he referenced is taking place in their country and they are off on holiday after accomplishing exactly nothing.


Now, analytical disagreements are par for the course when budget and appropriations projects are debated. But the president’s statements about the budget are so patently and obviously false that they read much more like propaganda than policy differences. The mind boggles at the audacity. It really truly boggles.




There's more: "Debunking a presidential budget myth" >>

Friday, July 27, 2007


The Jokes Write Themselves


Source: President Bush Discusses Economic Expansion and Gross Domestic Product Growth
Mortar Board tip: Holden Caulfield




There's more: "The Jokes Write Themselves" >>

Thursday, July 26, 2007


The Bush View of the Constitution

Based on recent events, Bush must think this fine print is part of the U.S. Constitution:[inspired by Josh Marshall]




There's more: "The Bush View of the Constitution" >>