a running list of bush’s achievements

there still seem to be about 40% of americans that say they are happy with bush. i don’t know why, but just to help those people, i will start a list here with some of his achievement: 

• a failed strategy to fight al qaeda — with the terrorist group regrouping and getting stronger in pakistan 
• a war in iraq that can only be described as a failure, has cost more than 4,000 american lives, will cost in the trillions of dollars, and has taken troops that were needed to fight al qaeda to fight in iraq
• oil at records prices (i don’t even know how much it costs these days, but it is still above $100 for the barrel) 
• an economy is shambles … the other day i heard someone (that was a fairly well known economist) say that it is in its worst situation since the great depression 
• a dollar at record lows — i remember when you could get 0.86 euros for a dollar now it is somewhere around 1.5 euros
• a housing market that is going to make lives even harder to americans as they find their investments going sour 
• ever increasing debt — that national debt clock in ny is running out of numbers as it is going to hit $10 trillion in national debt this year
• an increasing gap between the rich and the poor 
• an economy that is producing less and less but borrowing more and more 
• no energy policy what-so-ever that addresses changing oil demands and energy needs in a time of global warming 
• … there are probably a ton of other achievement 

so if you are a bush supporter can you please enlighten me why that is the case? 

american enterprise institute once again showcases its stupidity

think tanks are supposed to employ smart, independently thinking people that provide expert opinions on issues at hand. ok, stop laughing. i know, this is just the ideal. reality is that think tanks employ yes-men (and women) that are hired to come up with “analysis” and “reports” that will support a predefined opinion. the american enterprise institute is one such think tank. “experts” that have worked there include lynne cheney and paul wolfowitz. i guess it is quite clear what kind of opinions the american enterprise institute supports. and yes, they wrote quite a bit how advantageous it would  be if the US would invade iraq … well so much for that. but one would think that a think tank will keep on thinking and learning. but, no. no such luck.  michael rubin one of the thinking fellows at the american enterprise institute today gave an interview to cnsnews.com in which he commented on nancy pelosi’s comments that the iraq war is a failure (not really hard to argue with that). but here is what the thinker (or maybe tanker?) had to say: 

 “I used to give Nancy Pelosi benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think she’ll be happy until we have a Rwanda-like genocide. Pelosi is perhaps the worst example of a liberal racist: She sees Iraqis as nothing more than a template upon which to fight a partisan battle. It really is disgraceful,” he added.  

 hm, this makes me wonder… i would assume that if you work in a think tank and think and research all day long  you follow the news and keep on-top of what is going on in the world. but not so for mr. rubin it seems like. let’s provide him with a couple of data points here: 

• estimated death toll in rwanda:  937,000 
• estimated death toll in iraq (until the end of 2006): 655,000 

ok, i admit that there is a 300,000 dead difference, but then the iraq war is still going on with people nearly dying daily (although i have to admit that it is getting harder and harder to find news about there bombings, not because they don’t happen but mostly because it seems western media have gotten bored by them). but besides the 300,000 dead difference i would say  that a rwanda like genocide is pretty much already underway in iraq with sunnis, shias, and kurds killing each other for a couple of years now.so, maybe, just maybe it is not pelosi, but bush, cheney, mccain, and yes, also mr. rubin who are fighting a partisan battle over a lost war which so far has cost thousands of american lives and is costing way more than half a million iraqi lives (those are by the way the people that the US and people like mr. rubin wanted free). 

an economic stimulus plan that is all show in an election year, but the wrong thing to do

so the senate passed the economic stimulus plan today after a little debate about adding a bit more money for seniors and veterans. in total the whole plan will be worth about $168 billion. here is what the plan will do:

 As passed by the Senate and sent to the House, the program calls for rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 for most taxpayers, payments of $300 to people who paid no income taxes but earned $3,000 or more from Social Security or veterans’ disability benefits, and various tax incentives for businesses.

but even more important than the checks going out to american consumers are the photo ops today in the senate for three potential next president. would be fun to see all three of them posing for more photo ops when the checks are actually delivered — hillary handing over a $300 check by herself.

but what is the impact of this? so there will be another $168 billion added to the economy some point during 2008.  to put that into perspective, the gdp of the US is $13.13 trillion, which mean that the $168 billion will only be a little blimp on the radar of the US economy. on top of this, it is not even clear how much of the $168 billion will end up back in the economy since some of the recipients of the money will decide to save it (something quite likely in a time when the economy is not doing well). and even of the money that will be spend, some will end up outside of the US, very likely in china, paying for some product that has been sold at wal mart of target.

encouraging spending is the wrong message to send 

while i think that the stimulus plan won’t have a big impact on the economy, i think it also sends the wrong message. americans already spend way beyond their means. one of the reasons we are in this situation is that americans spend too much, and they spend too much money they didn’t have. so to tell them, please spend more is not addressing the actual problem, it will only lead to even bigger problems down the road.

what should be done? 

now there are probably a ton of solutions to address the current economic situation. one might be to do nothing and as most republicans always like to say “let the market take care of it” — (interestingly those very republicans don’t seem to have very much faith in the market right now, screaming for this stimulus package and for all kinds of help for the banks).  but there is one thing that is in dire need of more money, that will pay the bills for thousands of americans, and that will make america more attractive for foreign investors — what i am talking about is the US infrastructure. and i am not even talking about the internet, the information highway or the like, no, plain old streets, bridges, water ways, harbors …the bridge disaster last year in minnesota as well as the blast of an 83 year old steam pipe in ny show that the existing infrastructure is crumbling, with:

One-in-four U.S. bridges need repair; one-third of roads are in substandard condition; one-third of dams are considered hazardous; and aging sewer systems spill 1.2 trillion gallons of sewage annually… 

and  one study has the cost to repair existing infrastructure at more than $1.6 trillion. now you might say that the $160 billion would not be enough to pay for that, but some government spending is already going towards those $1.6 trillion and the $160 billion would get the country closer to having a 21st century infrastructure.

so investing the money in repairing the american infrastructure has a couple of benefits

• it would employ thousands of construction workers, a group that is extremely hard his due to the current housing slump
• construction needs a lot of other products a lot of which are built in the US — just think ford f-series trucks
• a healthy infrastructure will cut cost due to a crumbling infrastructure (reduction in insurance payments, emergency clean ups …)
• a healthy infrastructure will make environmental sense
• a healthy infrastructure will make the US more interesting from an investment perspective (which is especially right now with the weak dollar quite good)

the one downside with this infrastructure investment solution as a stimulus package might be that it will not kick in as fast as the consumption checks, but then nobody knows the actual impact of those checks and with no checks americans might start to learn to spend their money a bit more wisely.

the fiscal conservatism myth by the republicans

every time there is an election in the US there will be a conversation of which of the two parties is more fiscally conservative. each time republicans complain about the democrats’ fiscal irresponsability complaining about the potential for higher taxes and increased government spending. and each time the press and most of all american voters fall for this myth!

and republicans have already started to ensure the public that they are not going to increase taxes and that the democrats will likely do so. today bush proposed his $3.1 trillion budget. here is what business week has to say about the impact of this budget:

Slumping revenues and the cost of an economic rescue package will combine to produce a huge jump in the deficit to $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, the White House says, just shy of the record $413 billion set four years ago.

but this is not all … the next paragraph in this article shows just how fiscally conservative republicans and bush are:

But even those figures are optimistic since they depend on rosy economic forecasts and leave out the full costs of the war in Iraq. The White House predicts the economy will grow at a 2.7 percent clip this year, far higher than congressional and private economists expect, and the administration’s $70 billion figure for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply a placeholder until the next president takes office.

so hiding one of the biggest cost areas (two major wars) and on top of this calculating with the rosiest of economic growth rates available is called conservative? i just want to remind people her that the previous administration (a democratic one) balanced the budget, something which is actually fiscally conservative, and this one squandered all of this. and here is how these fiscally responsible republicans plan to save a little bit:

 Now, he’s [Bush] relying on spending cuts — for everything from transportation to Medicare and Medicaid to nonprofit groups that help the poor — to do the job in order to keep his signature 2001 and 2003 tax cuts intact instead of expiring at the end of 2010. … Bush proposes killing or cutting back sharply 151 programs to save $18 billion next year. Many of those cuts have been proposed and rejected by Congress before, such as moves to eliminate community services grants to nonprofit groups that help the poor, a food program aimed at low-income seniors and grants to help states keep illegal immigrants convicted of felonies in jail. Lawmakers will surely restore proposed cuts to clean water grants, funding for local law enforcement and homeland security grants to states and local governments. … For 2009, that means just a 1 percent boost in a universally supported food program for poor pregnant women and their children, despite rapidly rising food costs. Health research funded by the National Institutes of Health would be frozen, which is likely to mean fewer research grants. …  The budget proposes eliminating the $283 million federal program to help people make their homes more energy efficient and would cut energy aid to poor households by $500 million, a 22 percent drop over this year’s spending.

so much for compassionate. as for fiscally conservative … well it is a joke. none of these little programs makes a dent in the budget. if this administration wants to save money then they have to look at the defense spending, that is where the money goes, at the cost of the millions of poor, uninsured americans. to say that a possible tax increase by a democratic administration is big government or tax and spend is just plain stupid. one can ask anyone, but if one is short of money there are two options:

1. cut spending
2. make more money

there certainly has to be a reduction in spending, but with an economic downturn this can’t be done on the backs of the working poor (because it will only reduce the number of people that can consume), spending cuts have to happen where there is real money and not just pocket change. and if there just is not enough money then those that have a lot have to give a bit more … this is the same logic that bush used when he said there is a budget surplus so the government should give money back to the people.

so when people go to vote for a new president later this year they should ask themselves two questions:

1. when was the last time a republican lead government was really fiscally conservative (cut the budget and reduced spending across all of americans not just the working poor)?
2. were taxes back in the ’90s really unbearably high?

these bush comments must be real motivators for US intelligence analysts

bush gave this fox interview about the iran NIE, and what he says is that those analysts are working hard, but that despite that he makes up his own mind … i wonder what his analysis is based on? i mean if he has his own — seemingly way more accurate  sources — why are US taxpayers pay billions of dollars to fund intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA?

another question i have is why it is ok for saudi arabia and abu dabi to be pursuing so called peaceful nuclear ambitions (and as bush says there is nearly no difference between peaceful and weapon grade programs) but for iran it is not? another of the many double standards.