Showing posts with label Bush-George W. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush-George W. Show all posts

Sunday, March 9, 2025

On W's shoulders

During the reign of George W, I had moments of concern about the possibility of ending up in a gulag for dissing the king.  I was premature, but not unreasonable, in my concerns.

Trump’s first — and only — major legislative achievement was to follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush’s first term by enacting massive tax cuts for the richest Americans. That gift to the wealthy proved to be a fiscal disaster for the nation and a political disaster for Trump and his party, ushering in a series of electoral losses for the GOP beginning with the 2018 midterms.

  Public Notice
We have to hope for the same in 2026, but too much damage can already have happened by then.
[Trump] and his billionaire cronies are making increasingly strong signals that he’ll begin his second term by attacking Social Security (and potentially Medicare), this time mirroring a political disaster that Bush brought upon the GOP during his second term.

It is difficult to imagine a more politically foolhardy target than Social Security and Medicare. Yet, for decades, GOP politicians have been as tempted to attack these extraordinarily popular and successful elements of the social safety net as moths are to fly into flames.

[...]

George W. Bush, like Trump, focused his first term economic program on fiscally unsound tax cuts for the rich. But after winning reelection, Bush began his second term with a declaration that he had obtained “political capital.” He chose to spend it with another attack upon Social Security.

In 2005, Bush announced his support for a “privatization” scheme inspired by the “voluntary” Social Security proposal favored by Goldwater and the young Reagan. He then embarked on a full-fledged campaign in support of his effort to gut Social Security, giving speech after speech in which he declared that the nation should be prepared to make “tough” decisions.

Bush likely expected that a substantial number of “fiscally moderate” Democrats would support his program, or at least parts of it. But Democrats had learned their lesson from past GOP assaults on Social Security and overwhelmingly resisted Bush’s proposal.

Bush’s plan flamed out even more spectacularly than had Reagan’s 1981 initiative. The debacle paved the way for W’s political unraveling, beginning with huge Democratic victories in the 2006 midterms and the victory of Barack Obama two years later.

[...]

In March of this year, Trump let slip on CNBC that he just might be convinced to go after the social safety net, stating, “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting.”

[...]

[I]t has always been the case that Congress will have to vote in favor of any proposal to gut entitlement programs. That is because Social Security and Medicare comprise “mandatory” spending, which is compelled by statute. And secondly, as a matter of financial fact, the kind of drastic austerity measures that Trump’s cronies are proposing will necessarily involve massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or both.

That is because approximately 60 percent of the federal budget is composed of mandatory spending, while 10 percent is devoted to debt service. Of the remaining 30 percent, half is defense spending, leaving only 15 percent that comprises the entirety of non-defense, discretionary spending.

[...]

As they have been in the past, the GOP majority in Congress is likely to be enthusiastically supportive of an attack on Social Security — at least until the inevitable backlash hits them.

[...]

Sooner rather than later, Trump seems likely to emulate George W. Bush — a former president he mocks with glee — by proposing cuts to Social Security and possibly Medicare too. His proposal will be met by much enthusiasm from GOP legislators and wealthy donors. But then the backlash will arrive, and the massive snowball Trump and his cronies sent down the hill will run them over.

[...]

If Democrats play their cards right, the defeat of yet another GOP assault on key elements of the safety net for older Americans could be the beginning of a broader collapse of the Trump effort to “remake government” to serve his authoritarian ambitions.
"If" is doing a lot of work there.



Saturday, October 14, 2023

Gaza crisis

Israel has vowed to obliterate the Hamas militant group, after its fighters broke through the hi-tech fence surrounding the strip, and went on a murderous rampage, killing 1,300 people, mainly Israeli civilians, and seizing dozens of hostages.

[...]

Thousands of Palestinians have continued to leave northern Gaza and cram into already crowded schools, homes and makeshift shelters in the south, as Israeli airstrikes pound the blockaded strip ahead of an expected ground invasion.

[...]

Around 2.3 million Palestinians are trapped in Gaza, facing a terrifying escalation of bloodshed and misery, after Israel sealed all crossings into its territory and Egypt said it would not allow refugees to enter and reinforced its border crossing.

Food, fuel and water supplies were dwindling fast on Saturday after Israel cut all movement in and out of Gaza. The death toll from airstrikes, already at unprecedented levels, has reached more than 2,200.

  Guardian
UPDATE 10:16 am:


To be fair, George W Bush never had an idea in his life outside of college pranks.  That was probably Dick Cheney's idea.  But I take Liz' point.

Friday, March 17, 2023

Washington motto: Don't look back

[T]he ghosts of history are never all that welcome in Washington. It’s a place that has a hard time looking back and an even harder time doing anything to rectify past mistakes. The capital has a case of “permanent historical amnesia.”

[...]

Which made it all the more notable when the Senate met on Thursday to take a key procedural vote on a measure to repeal the two-decade-old authorization that provided the legal basis for Bush’s invasion of Iraq. [...] “The last time we’ve had a stand-alone vote on the floor,” for something like this Iraq repeal measure, [Democratic Senator Tim] Kaine noted, “is probably before anybody in the Senate was born. It’s just something that we’ve abdicated.”

[...]

This scheduling offered not only a chance to reassert Congress’s constitutional power to declare war but also the nearly irresistible opportunity to make a political point about the historic folly of that particular war. In their remarks before the Senate overwhelmingly voted, 68–27, to invoke cloture and clear the way for a vote next week.

  New Yorker
But, does the House have to agree?
Two decades ago, Bush and the Republicans were nearly united in their embrace of a brash militarism that sought to topple Saddam and transform Iraq and the broader Middle East in the process. [...] [B]acklash to the conflict arguably gave rise to the Presidencies of both Barack Obama—who first rose to fame as an antiwar state legislator—and Donald Trump. Trump is a Bush-basher of long standing, and he often framed his takeover of the Republican Party as an explicit repudiation of the extended Bush family and its internationalist legacy. Trump has said Bush “lied” to start the war, that he should have been impeached for how badly it was conducted, and that, over all, Bush had a “failed and uninspiring Presidency.”
There's one point on which I'm in agreement with Trump.
Much as the Vietnam War did for a previous generation, the failures in Iraq shattered American confidence, shaped future debates over the use of military force, made the concept of democracy promotion itself suspect, distracted from rising threats posed by the revisionist great powers Russia and China, and splintered the previously unquestioned Republican commitment to a robustly internationalist American foreign policy.

[...]

DeSantis, back in the pre-Trump era of 2015, publicly bashed Obama for not providing enough arms to Ukraine. His flip-flop is so telling. There may still be Bush-style internationalists left in Washington, but it says everything about the trajectory of the Party’s foreign-policy thinking that both of its 2024 front-runners think that’s not where the primary voters they seek stand.

[...]

In a remarkable statement dismissing the [Russian invasion of Ukraine] as little more than a “territorial dispute,” DeSantis seemed to signal how much he thinks Republican sentiment has shifted since the Bush era. You don’t have to support the disastrous invasion of Iraq to acknowledge that Russia’s barbaric war of aggression against its neighbor Ukraine is wrong, and yet that is where both Trump and DeSantis have now landed. [...] DeSantis’s comments to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson [...] drew strong pushback from the remaining Republican hawks in the old Bush mold. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called it his “first big mistake.” Lindsey Graham called it a “Neville Chamberlain approach” of appeasement. Nikki Haley pointedly observed that DeSantis was just “copying” Trump with his new position.

[...]

Many officials other than Bush himself, of course, have admitted the invasion was a mistake, “a grave and costly error,” as the former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote in The Atlantic this week. I believe there is a straight line that leads from that debacle to the political mess we are in today.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Saturday, July 31, 2021

Opinion(s)


I don't disagree.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

YWA is 17 years old today

Lord have mercy.  Seventeen years of screaming into the void.

Here's the very first post:



And this is what we were talking about then:

Nobody at the helm

Ship of state tossed on a stormy sea, eh? The Washington Post headline reads: Senators Say Bush Needs to Take Control . That's a little scary, isn't it?

"The president has to be president," Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That means the president over the vice president, and over these secretaries" of state and defense. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice "cannot carry that burden alone."

Geez, that's all a little scary. Bring me more sand.

Now we get a(nother) new plan for Mid-East peace: the Geneva Accord. Sharon doesn't like it - so why are they wasting their time? I wonder if, in their hearts, these people really believe they're ever going to find a solution. Does anybody really want one?

And how much more like the Israel/Palestine situation can the US/Iraq one get?

The use of suicide bombing in Iraq - the first announced target was the UN in August - signals a clear change of tactics by the growing resistance movement. The US-led coalition forces, frustrated by their inability to control the situation, blame foreign infiltrators for these attacks, emphasising the similarity between these new tactics and those of al-Qaida and other militant groups in the Middle East. Few seem to grasp the fact that Iraqis, who are well-trained militarily, have simply learned from others' experiences, and carried out the attacks themselves.   Inside the Resistance

Speaking of Iraq...

"We don't have the $87 billion that the president needs now. We're probably going to have to borrow it, and we'll probably end up giving it to him, but the American people are going to be very resentful about that," Rockefeller told "Fox News Sunday."

You think? What the smeg is going on? Congress no longer represents the will of the people. (Yeah, I know - where have I been?) 'The People' are simply 'fodder units'. (Here in Missouri, 'the people' voted against carrying concealed weapons. But the legislators, in their superior wisdom, enacted the law anyway. And by the way - la belle soeur informs me that, although I may not carry a concealed weapon into a public meeting, elected officials may. WTF?) Nope. Afraid 'The People' are out of the loop now. And it should comfort us greatly that the 'elected officials' admit that they don't even read important legislation that comes to them for a vote.

I think that when the American people learn, as they did on CNN the other night in the debate, that Howard Dean is for the occupation of Iraq, that he's for spending $87 billion in the next installment, that he's for keeping at least 70,000 American troops there, and that I'm not only in favor of ending the occupation, but stopping the waste of our tax dollars and bringing our troops home, the American people will be aware that they do have a choice. --Dennis Kucinich

Well, if we could get him past Diebold, perhaps.


And, don't forget Bolivia.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

We don't really get anywhere, do we?

For a very few of you who were here at the beginning, I apologize for reminding you how long you've been hanging in here.  But I salute you for sticking it out through these incredible - and often awful - years. 

Please stay safe, and don't get the coronavirus.  In other words, stay away from Trump supporters. 

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.