The cool, cerebral White House might logically conclude that Wednesday's decidedly uncool, uncerebral "tea bag" protests were intellectually and politically incoherent, and therefore not worth a second thought. That would be a dangerous mistake.
The made-for-television demonstrations in cities across the country were generally small, and the only thing they proved conclusively is that -- you might want to sit down -- some Americans don't much enjoy paying taxes. What the rallies suggested, however, is that opposition to the Obama administration is coalescing into what I would call a Howard Beale Faction, in honor of the choleric anchorman in the movie "Network" whose signature line now seems to have been elevated into philosophy: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Not going to take what anymore? Well, whatever. The occasion was Tax Day, April 15, and clearly there was a lot of anger about taxes. That can't have been the only source of ire, however, since President Obama's policies mean that the vast majority of Americans will be paying less in income taxes, not more. In terms of logical self-interest, only the wealthy should have come out to dump their tea bags and wave their pitchforks.
There was anger at hemorrhagic government spending, and this plotline in the mad-as-hell narrative at least made sense. A neutral observer might point out that the president who should have to answer for this year's astronomical $1.7 trillion deficit is George W. Bush, since this is his budget -- and since he's the one who hid the costs of our two faraway wars and demanded a king's ransom to bail out the banks. But it's not as if Obama is some kind of tightwad, given his decision -- which I support -- to push ahead with new spending on health care, education and energy. And anyway, in the worldview of the Howard Beale Faction, the important distinction isn't between one president and the next. It's between "us" and "them."
Some protesters were mad about measures they feared Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress might take to strengthen gun control laws. Some were mad about illegal immigration, some about abortion, some about gay marriage. At times, the protests ventured into fantasyland. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, caught up in the excitement of the day, prattled nonsensically about Texas's onetime status as an independent country and how, purportedly, the state had reserved the right to secede.
The protests were all over the map and thus hard to take seriously. A reality check would show that Obama's approval rating is running higher than 60 percent in most recent polls. Surveys indicate that Americans blame Wall Street and the Bush administration for the woeful state of the economy. Generally speaking, the polls show that most Americans are willing to go along with the president's agenda, at least for now, and realize that it will take time to begin seeing results.
But the polls also point to what looks like a reservoir of simmering discontent. For example, according to a CBS News-New York Times survey released last week, 47 percent of respondents were willing to believe that the Obama administration's bailout assistance to the banks would ultimately benefit all Americans, as opposed to 40 percent who believed the money would just benefit the banks. But in that same poll, 58 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the administration's plans to provide financial aid to the banks. In other words: Maybe this is necessary, but we don't like it. Among self-described independent voters, 68 percent disapproved of how the administration was bailing out the banks.
I dwell on this one question buried deep inside one poll because I think it contains a quiet warning -- the same message that could be discerned amid the random noise of the Howard Beale shoutfests. When the economy begins to rebound, Wall Street will come back first -- already, we're seeing some big banks, still bloated with taxpayer funds, reporting healthy profits. After recovery begins, unemployment will almost certainly continue to rise for months until it hits its peak. The mad-as-hell faction may thrive and multiply.
A growing sense of us vs. them, of the little guy vs. the big guy, is out there waiting to be exploited by anyone clever enough to fashion a sophisticated populist critique of the Obama administration's policies. I know it seems crazy to use words like "clever" and "sophisticated" in connection with today's Republican Party, but stranger things have happened.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
jameznyhc
04-17-2009, 03:43 PM
so another words the left supported bush bailout and spending ..they opposed his tax cuts .. what Obama doin different than bush besides raising taxes and spending 3 times as much .. oh by the way Iraq and afghanistan could have been ended on jan 20th ..so the dems are trying to out do bush .. werent we told 160k troops was not enough for iraq? .. but 17k will stop an insurgency in afghanistan .. ok..
i love how the left got the presidency, senate, and whitehouse yet still act like they are loosing
Benny B
04-17-2009, 03:45 PM
so another words the left supported bush bailout and spending ..they opposed his tax cuts .. what Obama doin different than bush besides raising taxes and spending 3 times as much .. oh by the way Iraq and afghanistan could have been ended on jan 20th ..so the dems are trying to out do bush .. werent we told 160k troops was not enough for iraq? .. but 17k will stop an insurgency in afghanistan .. ok..
i love how the left got the presidency, senate, and whitehouse yet still act like they are loosing
heres a free gift
darius
04-17-2009, 04:59 PM
heres a free gift
how about that . . . they're giving away Obama dolls at your place of birth.
so another words the left supported bush bailout and spending ..they opposed his tax cuts .. what Obama doin different than bush besides raising taxes and spending 3 times as much .. oh by the way Iraq and afghanistan could have been ended on jan 20th ..so the dems are trying to out do bush .. werent we told 160k troops was not enough for iraq? .. but 17k will stop an insurgency in afghanistan .. ok..
i love how the left got the presidency, senate, and whitehouse yet still act like they are loosing
The numbers are in. With the release of the first estimate of the FY 2009 budget, we can now summarize and assess President Bush’s fiscal legacy.1
Section 1. Overall Federal Numbers under President Bush
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending, as seen in Table 1:
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Table1_FederalBudget2002_2009.JPG
In fact, as seen in Table 2, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Table2_ChangesRealTotalOutlaysNondefens eandDefense.JPG
In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Figure 1 illustrates that during his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton.
Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure1_HowMuchDidPresidentsClintonandB ushSpendDuringTheirTerms.JPG
Figure 2 illustrates how—with one noticeable exception in 2007—federal spending grew dramatically faster under President Bush than under President Clinton.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure2_FederalBudgetAnnualGrowth.JPG
Figure 3 shows the cumulative real discretionary spending increases for recent presidents who have served two terms (Reagan, Clinton, and Bush), setting the first year in office at a base of 100. With this identical starting point, we can see how much each president added to the budget during his term.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure3_Analysis_CumulativeRealDiscreti onarySpendingIncreasesinEightYearsofPresidency.JPG
President Bush outspent both Reagan and Clinton. President Reagan boosted defense outlays by 41 percent during his terms, but he also cut real nondefense outlays by 10 percent. Overall, total discretionary spending increased by 15.8 percent during Reagan’s terms. During Clinton’s first term, real discretionary spending actually decreased by 8 percent. During his second term, with the Republicans in control of Congress, it increased by 8.8 percent. Over Clinton’s eight years then, real discretionary spending increased by 0.1 percent. During his two terms in office, however, President Bush increased real discretionary spending by 44 percent.
Figure 4 demonstrates how in FY2009—President Bush’s last budget—the federal government will spend $32,942.90 per household, up from $17,216.68 in FY2001. It will tax $18,286.74 per household and will run a budget deficit of $14,656.16 per household.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure4_TotalFederalSpendingperHousehol d.JPG
Section 2: Discretionary vs. Entitlement Spending
One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.
Figure 5 shows that while discretionary spending never outgrew mandatory spending, it kept pace with it (with the exception of FY2009 due to the financial bailout and the federal takeover of Freddie and Fannie).
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure5_DiscretionaryvsMandatorySpendin g.JPG
Figure 6 shows that annual growth of discretionary outlays had accelerated during President Bush’s terms. In fact, during most of the Clinton years, discretionary spending barely grew.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure6_AnnualGrowthofDiscretionaryOutl ays.JPG
Rather than increasing the discretionary budget, Congress should have cut it to make way for rapid future growth in entitlement programs. As the trend in figure 7 indicates, when the baby-boom generation begins retiring later in the next decade, Social Security and Medicare costs will explode. If Congress does not reform entitlement programs, longer life spans and rising health-care costs will exacerbate the already huge burden placed on future generations.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure7TrendinDiscretionaryOutlaysSince 2000.JPG
To make matter worse, President Bush’s enactment of the Medicare prescription drug bill will make the coming fiscal crunch from entitlements much worse. Even though the budget was already deep into deficit and entitlements have huge long-term financing shortfalls, Congress and President Bush enacted a new multi-billion entitlement program in December 2003—the biggest expansion in Medicare since its inception.
Section 3. Discretionary Defense versus Nondefense Outlays
Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Figure 8 shows discretionary nondefense spending versus defense spending in the last eight years. It shows that no tradeoffs were made during the Bush years between defense and nondefense outlays.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure8DefenseVersusNondefenseDiscretio naryOutlays.JPG
Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.
In summary, only a part of recent spending increases are related to 9/11. Much of the increase stems from new domestic spending initiatives on the parts of the administration and Congress, such as expansions in the Department of Education.
Section 4: Pork Projects
Two other good indicators of a lack of fiscal responsibility are the costs of and number of earmarks (i.e. pork) that make their ways through the appropriations process.
As seen in figure 9, between 1994 and 2005, both the cost of and the number of pork projects increased dramatically, reaching an all-time numerical high of 13,997 pork items in 2005. The year 2006 saw a slight reduction in the number of earmarks, but their costs went up to $29 billion in that single year.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure9_AnnualNumberofCongressionalPork .JPG
The year 2006 was also the last year that Republicans were in full control of both Congress and the White House. Since then, Congress made some effort to reduce the use of earmarks with more or less success. After a serious reduction in the number and the costs of earmarks in FY2007, lawmakers slipped over 8,000 earmarks into an Omnibus bill in February of this year. These earmarks come on top of the 2,321 earmarks added to the three appropriations bills completed and signed by President Bush in September 2008. The pork project total in 2009 will reach 10,891 projects and will cost taxpayers $14.8 billion.
Section 5: Federal Subsidies
President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedImages/Mercatus/Publications/DeRugy_GWB_Figure9_AnnualNumberofCongressionalPork .JPG
Republicans often claim to be the party of smaller government. Many Republicans would express support for Ronald Reagan’s observation: “Growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down.”2 Unfortunately, once Republicans are elected to political office, they tend to fall into the Washington trap of assuming that more federal spending will solve the nation’s problems. Certainly, President Bush appears to have fallen into this trap. So did the Republicans in Congress.
Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel argues that we should not be surprised by the discrepancy between the rhetoric and the actual policies of Republicans. Frankel even argues that “the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government, and bad microeconomics.”3 Frankel is incorrect about the microeconomics—Republicans generally pursue sounder tax policies than Democrats, for example—but when it comes to big government spending, the Bush Administration seems to have gone out of its way to confirm Frankel’s point.
-------------------
1 Office of Management and Budget (2009), A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, www.budget.gov
2 Ronald Reagan, September 1981, www.reaganesque.com.
3 Jeffrey Frankel, “Trading Places: Republicans’ Economic Policy Is Now Closer to That Associated with the Democrats, and vice versa, says Jeffrey,” Financial Times, September 13, 2002.
jameznyhc
04-17-2009, 06:16 PM
so darius you obviously suppoirted his spending if your going to support obamas.. i dont think i ever heard one republican outside of washington dc say they were happy about his spending.. i was one of his biggest suppporters PRE BAILOUT..i allways criticized his spending ...this is why any republican out there suggesting the party needs to moderate more is insane ..the libs were never against Iraq before Bush .. When Clinton bombed them in 98 all we heard about was Sadaams genocide and torture ..yet Clinton said it was because of WMD's .. then he called for regime change and got it.. fast forward march of 2003 bush had 85% public approval for Iraq war .. just about every dem granted him that right ..after all the intelligence came from the same man George Tenent that told clinton iraq was in process of making wmds .. only until howard dean rebelled in 03 every dem was out to prove who was the biggest hawk correct? ..including kerry ..
so my question is Barry said he was gonna change the policy of the last 8 years.. but what has changed besides massive tax increases ? and more spending ..and another bailout? ..the only difference now is the dollar will be even weaker ..and inflation gonna explode..
what saved Bush's ass up until the bailout was the growth that kicked in after the recession Bush inherited and 9/11 .. his tax cuts did spark massive growth .. they allways do ..what led to these deficits was his spending ..
so what about all the other promises ... Obama ran on ..
1) NAFTA ...he had to lie to gain blue collar support vs hillary
2)Domestic spy program .. vowed he would never vote for it .. then he did .. now we know why he thinks vets are gonna be all tim mcveighs
3) ending the iraq war ..the dems wanted us out in 04? .. then 06.. then 08 .. now looks like we are there thru out his first term
4) patriot act..
these were the issues that drove the dems nuts ... As for afghanistan we still have no clear goals or what the mission is.. but Bush who got butchered for dissing chirac and europe .. he actually was able to get more troops out of them .. so know we have Barry killing innocents in pakistan with these manless drones (i wont critize this in war collatrial damage happens this is the best way to kill terrorists) .. he gonna expand afghanistan .. people are questioning now before he goes thru with it ..cause we all know if the taliban overthrew karzai tomorow there is no threat at all ..soon as the troops are deployed i will not criticize the surge because it only hurts our boys in afghanistan ..the time to protest and question his decision is now not after he sends the troops .. once the troops go you have to support Obama on that issue even if you disagree ..unless you wanna hurt the militarys morale like the protestors who came out during the war .. so this is why im very suspect of muslims not holding Obama to the same standards as bush ..
hind sight 20/20
darius
04-17-2009, 06:45 PM
so darius you obviously suppoirted his spending if your going to support obamas.. i dont think i ever heard one republican outside of washington dc say they were happy about his spending.. i was one of his biggest suppporters PRE BAILOUT..i allways criticized his spending ...this is why any republican out there suggesting the party needs to moderate more is insane ..the libs were never against Iraq before Bush .. When Clinton bombed them in 98 all we heard about was Sadaams genocide and torture ..yet Clinton said it was because of WMD's .. then he called for regime change and got it.. fast forward march of 2003 bush had 85% public approval for Iraq war .. just about every dem granted him that right ..after all the intelligence came from the same man George Tenent that told clinton iraq was in process of making wmds .. only until howard dean rebelled in 03 every dem was out to prove who was the biggest hawk correct? ..including kerry ..
so my question is Barry said he was gonna change the policy of the last 8 years.. but what has changed besides massive tax increases ? and more spending ..and another bailout? ..the only difference now is the dollar will be even weaker ..and inflation gonna explode..
what saved Bush's ass up until the bailout was the growth that kicked in after the recession Bush inherited and 9/11 .. his tax cuts did spark massive growth .. they allways do ..what led to these deficits was his spending ..
so what about all the other promises ... Obama ran on ..
1) NAFTA ...he had to lie to gain blue collar support vs hillary
2)Domestic spy program .. vowed he would never vote for it .. then he did .. now we know why he thinks vets are gonna be all tim mcveighs
3) ending the iraq war ..the dems wanted us out in 04? .. then 06.. then 08 .. now looks like we are there thru out his first term
4) patriot act..
these were the issues that drove the dems nuts ... As for afghanistan we still have no clear goals or what the mission is.. but Bush who got butchered for dissing chirac and europe .. he actually was able to get more troops out of them .. so know we have Barry killing innocents in pakistan with these manless drones (i wont critize this in war collatrial damage happens this is the best way to kill terrorists) .. he gonna expand afghanistan .. people are questioning now before he goes thru with it ..cause we all know if the taliban overthrew karzai tomorow there is no threat at all ..soon as the troops are deployed i will not criticize the surge because it only hurts our boys in afghanistan ..the time to protest and question his decision is now not after he sends the troops .. once the troops go you have to support Obama on that issue even if you disagree ..unless you wanna hurt the militarys morale like the protestors who came out during the war .. so this is why im very suspect of muslims not holding Obama to the same standards as bush ..
hind sight 20/20
i'm sorry man . . . i had trouble following your stream of consciousness. i can't seem to hone in on one cohesive thought in there, but that could just be that's its friday afternoon, my brain is done, and i need to get the F outta dodge. i'll have to take a raincheck on digesting this later. have a great weekend.
oh, but i do have one need for clarification . . . your use of the word "growth", as it pertains to the economy, what are you implying as "growth"? what are the indicators/trademarks of that "growth"? often times this is a very subjective term in many things and particular with economics. would you please just clarify/elaborate a little on that for me. thanks.
jameznyhc
04-17-2009, 07:21 PM
i'm sorry man . . . i had trouble following your stream of consciousness. i can't seem to hone in on one cohesive thought in there, but that could just be that's its friday afternoon, my brain is done, and i need to get the F outta dodge. i'll have to take a raincheck on digesting this later. have a great weekend.
oh, but i do have one need for clarification . . . your use of the word "growth", as it pertains to the economy, what are you implying as "growth"? what are the indicators/trademarks of that "growth"? often times this is a very subjective term in many things and particular with economics. would you please just clarify/elaborate a little on that for me. thanks.
you know exactly what im talking about ..its ok nobody can defend that much fraud (obamas campaign of lies and deceit) ..as for growth
growth would be considered ..
small business upstarts
GDP
manufacturing
low unemployment
growth in the markets
retraction. recession/ depression would be a retraction of these indicators ... plus inflation and weak dollar
i was allways a big supply side fan .. there a time and place when one realizes if something doesnt work ..try something NEW .. problem is Americans are to scared to try austrian economics and ron paul philosophy of real true free market capital;ism ..give it time ..
obama should be focusing on avoiding bubbles like home ownership (govt got involbved) ..Bush although didnt start it didnt do dick to correct it .. and since the housing bubble burrst nothing been done to correct the root causes of this collapse in banking ..