Posted on 08/08/2011 4:15:13 AM PDT by IbJensen
What should the president do Monday? I think Amilya Antonetti, chairman & CEO of AMA Productions, has it right. In a not-to-be-missed interview with Neil Cavuto (h/t Instapundit), she boiled it down to one word: Apologize. He should say hes sorry for his failure of leadership. Sorry for his utopian economic illiteracy. Sorry for putting ideology above political wisdom.
That would be the manly, the honorable thing to do. Admit he was wrong about what needed to be done to fix the U.S. economy.
What will he do? He will blame Standard & Poors. Or George W. Bush. Or the Tea Party. Or all three.
About George W. Bush. I have always been of the view that he spent too much money. (Like a drunken Democrat, I used to say: little did I know what was coming.) In my view, Medicare part-D (Prescription drugs for seniors) is a piece of feel-good fiscal irresponsibility that ranks up there with the epic disasters perpetrated by Lyndon Johnson. Indeed, the whole agenda of compassionate conservatism is redolent of a certain species of rancid idealism. Its what happens when people of generally conservative disposition find themselves seized by a failure of nerve and, desperate to calm themselves, adopt the protective coloration of a liberal on one or another issue.
But, spend as he would, George W. Bush is not the reason Barack Obama will go down in history as President Downgrade. Really, no one cares that he is the first (partly) black president. (Besides, if Toni Morrison is right, Bill Clinton copped that prize.) The first that will be his legacy is this: he was the first president in our history to preside over a downgrade in the credit worthiness of the Untied States of America.
Oh, but I inherited a mess from George W. Bush. Thats what the president and his handlers will be saying for decades.
Lets take a look at what he inherited from President Bush. Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, has the numbers. First, lets look at the revenue side of the equation:
Revenues fell in Bushs first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. Thats a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. . . . Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts cost, says one GOP strategist. Were saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue.
Then there is the deficit. This year it is weighing in at more than $1.5 trillion. Heres what it looked like under President Bush:
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of todays $1.6 trillion deficit.
Deficits went up in 2008, Mr. York notes, with the beginning of the economic downturn and, not coincidentally, with the first full year of a Democratic House and Senate.
Not coincidentally, indeed.
What about Standard & Poors? Back in April, Timothy taxes-are-for-little-people Geithner said there was no risk that the U.S. would lose it triple-A credit rating. (A piece of thoughtless irresponsibility, that any school boy knows that there is always some risk. It was reminiscent of Barney Frank assuring us that there was nothing wrong at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) When the downgrade came, the Department of the Treasury instantly convened a game of spin-those-numbers, claiming that the S&P analysts had based their rating on faulty assumptions and, consequently, that S&Ps projection of government spending was off by $2 trillion. A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself, said a Treasury Department minion.
But was S&Ps judgment flawed? The rating agencys response to the Treasury Department is worth pondering.
In response to questions, Standard & Poors today said that the ratings decision to lower the long-term rating to AA+ from AAA was not affected by the change of assumptions regarding the pace of discretionary spending growth. In the near term horizon to 2015, the U.S. net general government debt is projected to be $14.5 trillion (79% of 2015 GDP) versus $14.7 trillion (81% of 2015 GDP) with the initial assumption. . . .
In the near term horizon, by 2015, the U.S. net general government debt with the new assumptions were projected to be $14.5 trillion (79% of 2015 GDP) versus $14.7 trillion (81% of 2015 GDP) with the initial assumption a difference of $345 billion.
In taking a longer term horizon of 10 years, the U.S. net general government debt level with the current assumptions would be $20.1 trillion (85% of 2021 GDP). With the original assumptions, the debt level was projected to be $22.1 trillion (93% of 2021 GDP).
The primary focus remained on the current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook. None of these key factors was meaningfully affected by the assumption revisions to the assumed growth of discretionary outlays and thus had no impact on the rating decision.
The emphasis is mine. The lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook. Think about that. Behind the antiseptic prose is a moral and political condemnation of the first water. Our political elites have failed us dismally.
The response? If youre Harry Reid you read S&Ps opinion that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges and then conclude that Congress should address their weakness by raising taxes! The action by S&P, said Reid, reaffirms the need for us to raise taxes on all you slobs out there. Like the president, Harry Reid calls this a balanced approach, but the balance in question, as John Boehner observed, means We spend more, you pay more. (Incidentally, Harry Reid should get together with the Treasury Department to work out a consistent story. Just when Harry Reid was saying that the S&P downgrade meant Congress should raise taxes, the Treasury Department was saying the S&P analysts got it all wrong, in which case, presumably, nothing to worry about and Congress would not have to raise taxes: which is it, boys? Note that this is a situation in which both cannot be right but both can very easily be wrong.)
Its worth thinking carefully about this brisk reveille that Standard & Poors has brought us. As Amilya Antonetti noted in her interview with Neil Cavuto, the business community was not surprised by the news. Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin: they had seen the writing on the wall for months. S&P issued a warning last spring, which prompted Timothy Geithners little no risk ejaculation. The narrative is now up for grabs. The stakes could hardly be higher. The United States is at a crossroads. One way, the way advocated by our political elites, is the Keynesian path. We travel that road endeavoring to spend, and tax, our way out of debt. We have grand, economy-wrecking schemes according to which every auto shall travel 56 miles on a gallon of gasoline. Coal will be taxed and regulated to oblivion. Light bulbs will be toxic, cast a sickly light, but be energy efficient. And all Americans will be dependent on the federal government for their basic necessities.
Alexis de Tocqueville came up with the name for that road, and F.A. Hayek made the phrase famous: it is the Road to Serfdom. Vice President Joe Biden said that the Tea Partiers acted like terrorists by having the temerity to criticize the recent decision to increase the federal debt by $2.5 trillion. Heres the question: how much more proof do you need to see that business as usual in Washington is ruining the country? Federal debt at $16.7 trillion. Unemployment above 9 percent. The credit worthiness of the United States downgraded for the first time in history. Isnt it time to wake up and smell the latte?
My point is Obama is becoming your neighbor's scape goat, just like Obama uses Bush. Even MSNBC is going after Obama ... but not a word about the people who voted for him (in that case most of them on the screen!). Don't let your neighbor get away with it .. call them out ... they were WRONG because they didn't take the time to look at the facts...Obama is the President because THEY voted for him. My comment to my neighbor? "You voted for him, live with it, pal!" If you want to get rid of Obama, the guy next door is going to have to vote against him. Do your job for the country and make that happen, next door, on your block ... one person at a time.
Unless he bows, the apology from him cannot be considered sincere.
Prison near Chicago? How about GITMO.
DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz:We own the economy - June 15, 2011
You own The 0bama Depression!
We're going to hang you, your commie boss, and all the dims with this Ms. Wasserman Schultz!
FUBO GTFO 2012 !
Spot on. As John Galt once said, "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
ping for later....
Bingo!
So, Lazzzz....who, then?
This nation can’t wait until 2012! There are 860 rats that work in the White Hut that need to be evicted along with the lop-eared rat that sleeps there most nights.
America is doomed unless what has transpired since Obozo was hired by the illiterates comprising the electorate be erased. In fact, most of the cancer that has been growing since 1913 needs to be surgically removed....with a meat axe!
He got there because uninformed people VOTED for him. The “problem” probably lives next door to you, not in Washington.
I think my neighbor is selling his house because he is tired of my pointing this out to him, a liberal from Mass who invaded Florida and is now looking to go back.
>>So, Lazzzz....who, then?<<
SARAH PALIN.
If Romney gets the nod, look for a creditable third party/Tea Party run. One where the PUBs/Whigs come in third. Tea Party caucus needs to renounce the GOP and stand as a separate voting bloc, thus setting the stage for 2012.
What's he going to run on in 2012? Blame other’s and “get whitey.”
-——What’s he going to run on in 2012?-——
Don’t change horses in the middle of a war (with Iran)
Spot On!
However, using the "beer truck" syndrome as at least a possibility (that is: Mrs. Palin won't be available), who's next?
“Boil it down to one word: RESIGN! “
Awww that would be music to my ears...
bttt.
He would be lying through his teeth if he “apologized”, given that it has been his intention all along to drive our economy into the ground.
That was a fake receipt. There is enough to convict them without perpetuating internet myths.
Wow. Look at the tax on that receipt!!! Glad I live in Montana where do-gooder socialist libs aren’t taxing every step we take.
Wasn’t the Part D offered up after he was slapped down by Republicans when he tried to reform SS allowing a percentage of the SS to be invested by the individual?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.