Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (5227)	8/27/2002 4:25:12 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Bush must change economic course By MARIANNE MEANS SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Tuesday, August 27, 2002 WASHINGTON -- The legendary presidential scholar Richard Neustadt of Harvard University once described Herbert Hoover as bringing to the White House "a sense of purpose so precise as to be stultifying." Boston University history professor Robert Dallek concurs, noting that Hoover was overwhelmed by the Great Depression because "his rigid views concerning limited government and private initiative prevented him from taking the sort of bold, innovative steps needed. " Those distinguished experts on the presidency might as well be talking about George W. Bush today, 70 years after his fellow Republican's disastrous 1928-to-1933 stint in the White House, Bush also is a president so mired in conservative orthodoxy that he cannot think of any way to fight our economic woes except to repeat familiar GOP calls for more tax cuts, less federal regulation and lower federal spending. Those very policies have contributed to the climate of greed and corporate arrogance that unsettled Wall Street and undermined consumer confidence. The country is not in a Hoover-like depression, but the economy is shaky and could be slipping back into a recession. It's a good time for a course correction, although Bush has not proposed one. He has revealed no credible plan to solve the country's financial skittishness. He held a comical public relations stunt in Waco earlier this month during which he pretended to debate economic ideas with people who agreed with him. Then he claimed to have discovered from his pre-screened audience that small-business owners felt "constrained by tax policy and regulatory policy." Surprise! What he proposed were ways to cushion life for stock market investors and those with plenty of money to set aside in savings and retirement plans. His ideas included new tax reductions in addition to those already passed in the massive 2001 tax package. A perennial Republican favorite, a capital gains tax cut, is being resurrected. A new tax break on corporate dividends is also contemplated. Bush's primary goal seems to be luring investors back into the stock market with financial incentives that would greatly reduce U.S. Treasury revenue. This scheme would, in effect, force taxpayers to subsidize the upper class. Yet investment losses are already deductible over a period of years, and the ceiling on 401(k) investments went up in last year's tax package. Investors are not the only victims hurting from a weak economy. Bush did not offer help for working families who don't get millions in severance pay as their bosses do when companies go bankrupt. He didn't offer new initiatives to clean up the pervasive corrupt business practices he still pins on just a few bad apples. He didn't give a new priority to health care and pension reform, crucial aspects of the middle-class safety net. However, he specifically supported terrorism insurance, something that pleases his business and insurance industry supporters but offers little help in restoring economic health. Campaigning in South Dakota, Bush rejected frantic pleas from the state's Democratic senators for emergency aid to rescue farmers who have lost their crops to the worst drought since the Depression. Bush said he didn't want to "run up additional deficits in the federal budget" and coldly urged farmers to "overcome hardships" as their pioneer ancestors did. Earlier, he had tried to emphasize his desire to trim federal overspending by vetoing a $5.1 billion congressional authorization for airport security, veterans' medical care, aid to Israel, international AIDS relief and several homeland security projects. But that was a paltry sum in a $1.9 trillion federal budget. It was peanuts compared with the administration's defense spending, which after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks rose 14 percent over that of the previous year, to nearly $400 billion. And his minor cost-saving gesture would not siphon a drop from the federal red ink, if the Congressional Budget Office is correct in its forecast of a $157 billion deficit for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. Only a month ago the White House Office of Management and Budget forecast a much smaller deficit of $109 billion. But what's a president to do? His control over the economy is limited. Yet he must be seen as engaged on behalf of suffering voters or he will be defeated for re-election, as Hoover was. He won't reverse his big tax cuts. His father was punished by the GOP right wing when, as part of a fiscal deal with Congress, he broke his promise not to raise taxes. Bush can, however, stop pushing to make his cuts permanent and he can delay the implementation of the future phases of his 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut, which goes mostly to the rich. And it is politically dangerous to demand really large spending cuts, which would damage the favorite programs of Republican members of Congress as well as those of the Democrats. That's why Bush meekly signed an expensive farm bill. He didn't want to hurt Repubican election chances in the agricultural Midwest. He can also add a few extra funds where there's a real public need, such as in South Dakota, and where such a cash influx will be poured back into the local economy quickly. And finally, he can stop protecting the greedy vested interests that have bankrolled his campaigns and direct more of his concern toward helping ordinary taxpayers. If Hoover had done that, Franklin Roosevelt would have been a political also-ran. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marianne Means is Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2002 Hearst Newspapers. She can be reached at 202-298-6920 and means@hearstdc.com seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (5227)	8/27/2002 4:46:25 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Respond to of 89467

take all Congress with him, plus the FedReserve Board / jw

To: TigerPaw who wrote (5227)	8/27/2002 7:24:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Sharing the War Burden Commentary > The Monitor's View from the August 28, 2002 edition The Christian Science Monitor The Bush administration may be correct, in a technical sense, that a standing congressional authorization left over from the Gulf War permits it to wage war on Iraq. Yet even with that, along with its reading of Constitutional tea leaves over "who decides to go to war," a solo White House decision to attack Iraq violates the democratic process and would be politically irresponsible. (See story.) "Making war" and "declaring war" are two different things, the Constitution's framers decided. But the distinction doesn't make a difference when this possible war needs the kind of public discussion that will ensure long-term support for what could be messy, unforeseen consequences. The administration's urgency to squelch Saddam Hussein's nuclear program without congressional approval would seem like a big mistake if such a war goes wrong. Mr. Bush is politically attuned enough to engage in deliberations on the subject, saying he is a "deliberative man" who would "consult" with Congress. If the facts are so compelling, why not go right to Congress and work cooperatively to gain authorization or at the least ensure funding for the war and postwar cleanup? As commander in chief, the president works with a Congress that has declared a war and that has authority to stop a war with its budget-approving powers. The authorization that Bush received from Congress after 9/11 was clearly in response to the US being attacked. It gave the president authority to take defensive measures against terrorism. The prospective attack on Iraq is being interpreted as similarly defensive. All the legal wrangling, though, misses a point: Gaining support for a "regime change" in Iraq is essential. Mr. Bush and his security officials wouldn't need a protracted hearing on the Hill. The Iraqi menace is well documented, and the element of a surprise attack cannot be ignored. Congress could, of course, decide not to declare war, at least not for now. Many members may be reluctant to risk their political career by voting for a war that could end up being very costly in lives, money, and esteem for the United States. The Bush administration claims the risk of doing nothing is now higher than doing something against Iraq. While the lessons of history point that way, history also shows any democracy needs popular support to go to war. For all its faults, Congress is still the heart of US democracy. Bush commands high popular support, and need not fear sharing his responsibility for the right decision. csmonitor.com