[Tipacanoe]

Sep. 13, 2004. 08:14 AM

Strange race for U.S. presidency

CAROL GOAR

From a distance, the U.S. presidential election looks like a jumble of mismatched puzzle pieces. The pattern — if there is one — is full of gaps and riddles.

Fragment one: In the wake of hurricanes Charley and Frances, outsiders got a glimpse of the ramshackle trailer parks that hundreds of thousands of Floridians call home. What was as shocking as the devastation was the fact that so many Americans live in such abject poverty.

"People of means build solid structures and people without means live in frail ones and hurricanes have a way of finding the people without means," historian Louis Perez of the University of North Carolina told the Christian Science Monitor.

Yet barely a word was heard on the campaign trail about the lack of affordable housing in the state that Governor Jeb Bush, brother of the President, calls "paradise."

President George Bush, touring the wreckage of a mobile home park, promised emergency aid and observed that "people's lives have been turned upside down." But on the hustings, he continued to boast about America's high rate of home ownership and to tout tax credits and mortgage insurance as the keys to affordable housing.

Democratic presidential contender John Kerry made a brief, low-key visit, offering his condolences to hurricane victims and his support to relief workers. But he, too, treated Florida's trailer park ghettoes — often a stone's throw from luxury condos and splashy resorts — as a regrettable fact of life. While Kerry admits that America has an "affordable housing crisis," his only remedy is to bring back the programs that Bush cut.

Fragment two: Last week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the U.S. was heading toward a record budget deficit of $422 billion (U.S.) this year. It projected a cumulative deficit of $2.3 trillion (U.S.) over the next decade.

Four years ago, the U.S. was running healthy annual surpluses. Now it is spending $1.22 for every dollar it collects.

A fiscal imbalance of this magnitude, once entrenched, drives up borrowing costs and puts the long-term health of the economy at risk. Economists of all political persuasions are sounding the alarm.

Yet Bush and Kerry are dispensing shopworn bromides and no one seems to expect more.

The President, whose tax cuts created a large part of the red ink, says the deficit will shrink by half within five years as a result of economic growth and unspecified reductions in government spending.

Kerry, who is proposing a blizzard of new programs, says he can cut the deficit in half within four years by capping government spending and ending "corporate welfare."

Voters may not be swallowing these wishful prescriptions. But they're not questioning them.

Fragment three: Commentators are calling the 2004 presidential election the most important in a generation.

They point to the sharp ideological differences between Bush and Kerry, the deep divisions in the country, the animosity with which America is regarded in much of the world, the war on terrorism, the quagmire in Iraq, the escalating cost of health care and loss of more than 900,000 jobs in the last four years.

Yet the issue that has dominated campaign coverage, to the exclusion of almost everything else, has been the military records of the two candidates.

Americans have been inundated with ads denigrating Kerry's service as a decorated naval officer in Vietnam 36 years ago and questioning Bush's service as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard 32 years ago.

The U.S. media have taken their cue from this partisan propaganda, recycling and expounding on the charges and counter-charges. The candidates, while distancing themselves from their supporters' smear tactics, have joined the fray.

Americans do place great importance on having a commander-in-chief who is capable of leading the nation in wartime, defending it from external threats and maintaining its global pre-eminence.

But a youthful stint in the navy or National Guard seems like a dubious predictor of martial leadership.

Canadians can hardly be smug after their general election last spring.

It had its share of negative advertising. Bread and butter issues were eclipsed by arcane matters such as the use of the constitutional notwithstanding clause to invalidate the court decision on same-sex marriage. There was little discussion of affordable housing, income polarization or the miserable conditions in which many aboriginal people live.

But the campaign did not seem so wholly disconnected from the lives of citizens, the rules of economics and issues facing the country as the U.S. presidential race does.

It is hard to reconcile images of glitzy political conventions and dilapidated trailer parks; global economic might and slapdash fiscal policy; flag-draped military coffins and puerile attack ads.

Maybe that is why the U.S. has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the developed world.

[iltos]

it's the strangest presidental campaign in my memory...

part of it is me, who has stopped watching tv and reading the newspapers, and so is limited to conversations with people and what i look into on the www

what i started pondering this weekend (after realizing that kerry may be a lot of things, but i don't believe stupid is one of them) is the strategy behind what i find to be an almost non existant campaign....and i came to the conclusion that there is a distinct "moral and/or nationalistic fervor" in america among those who want to see bush serve four more years...something that is damn near impossible to address in a campaign without actually strengthening the opposition....

so i wonder if the kerry strategy begins somewhere in the belief that the events of the next two months will somehow do his campaigning for him...

just a thought

[Tipacanoe]

Sep. 14, 2004. 01:00 AM

The staggering legacy of tax cuts


If George Bush was running for re-election on the basis of his stewardship of the US economy alone, he would already be packing his bags.

To be blunt, the economy's performance has been dismal by recent standards. Some of that grimness has not been Bush's fault — he took office in the backwash of a calamitous financial bubble, the effects of which made the economic impact of 9/11 look like a hiccup.

But little that the Bush team has done since has been effective or sensible in policy terms. The debate inside the White House appears to have been limited in the extreme, provoking Bush's original choice as treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, to describe the president as "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." The administration's measures have been less "it's the economy, stupid," and more "the stupid economy."

Even if we excuse Bush the after-shocks of the dotcom meltdown and the disruption of 9/11, his record remains poor.

His default mode of economic stimulus has been tax cuts for the wealthy, which Republican apologists shrilly declared to be engines of job creation. That has proved to be incorrect.

Only a few months ago — February, in fact — the White House was predicting job growth of more than 300,000 a month.

The reality has been less than half that, or 1.7 million fewer jobs than the administration forecast just seven months ago. That means the labour market is standing still, with job creation barely keeping pace with U.S. population growth.

So, if no job growth, the legacy of the Bush tax cuts has instead been a ballooning deficit thanks to the tax cuts. The projections are staggering. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts a $2,000 billion deficit between now and 2009, including a $400 billion shortfall this year.

Given that Bush came into office with a budget surplus, the figures are extraordinary: America's economy has been mortgaged for its wealthiest citizens.

Bush addressed little of this during the Republican convention, instead mentioning vague and nebulous plans to encourage "ownership." As the Los Angeles Times observed, his speech "would have been more convincing if he had not actually been president for the last four years."

His opponent, John Kerry, has not been much more forthcoming, but is at least concerned about the dangers of the deficit.

Many of Kerry's economic advisers cut their teeth in the Clinton administration, and offer the prospect of competence and wisdom — something sorely missed in Bush's White House.

This is an editorial from the Guardian, based in London.

[combsdon]

.....yup....read in todays paper that we (USA) now have the largest deficit ever...........and you're gonna vote for whom ...........

[linskyjack]

Actually--Iltos, you have something there. I would say that the propoganda machine of the Republican party has essentially made it impossible for a debate of real issues to occur. In fact, Bush is trying to weasel out of one debate (the one that was going to have an open format where Indpendents could ask candidates questions)--he even got Jim Baker to run inteference for him. The Democrats really need to learn that the political landscape has changed. They must form there own propoganda machine in time for the next election. By the way, it would help if they got someone with some charisma--you know the black senator from Illiniois (forget his name) or maybe Evan Baye or John Edwards. Kerry was embalmed about ten years ago. One other thing---I wish I lived in a country where ideas were more important then image and fake patriotism. Unfortunately I dont--and neither does John Kerry.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by combsdon

.....yup....read in todays paper that we (USA) now have the largest deficit ever...........and you're gonna vote for whom ...........

You can't just look at the deficit. Don't forget that when bush first got into office, Clinton had left him BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars in the plus, so really bush has spent more than just the deficit!

Cheney once told a White House official that it was "OK to squander" all of the tax payers money because "it was owed to them " (cheney and bush) Have you ever heard of anything more irresponsible? We simply HAVE TO vote bush OUT of office, or the deficit will grow so large that it will be a bigger problem to our country than the terrorist! And how would we defend ourselves when our country would be that broke? PLEASE vote bush OUT, for our sakes and for the sakes of our children!

[combsdon]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

We simply HAVE TO vote bush OUT of office, or the deficit will grow so large that it will be a bigger problem to our country than the terrorist! And how would we defend ourselves when our country would be that broke? PLEASE vote bush OUT, for our sakes and for the sakes of our children!

................................let's hope so.............

[iltos]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Actually--Iltos, you have something there. I would say that the propoganda machine of the Republican party has essentially made it impossible for a debate of real issues to occur. In fact, Bush is trying to weasel out of one debate (the one that was going to have an open format where Indpendents could ask candidates questions)--he even got Jim Baker to run inteference for him. The Democrats really need to learn that the political landscape has changed. They must form there own propoganda machine in time for the next election. By the way, it would help if they got someone with some charisma--you know the black senator from Illiniois (forget his name) or maybe Evan Baye or John Edwards. Kerry was embalmed about ten years ago. One other thing---I wish I lived in a country where ideas were more important then image and fake patriotism. Unfortunately I dont--and neither does John Kerry.

well, i'll be....i posted an article about two months ago about reinventing the democrats, and the insights the wealthy liberals (soros, et al) have gained over the last several elections watching the republicans at work...and you can be sure you will barrack obama on the democratic ticket very soon...the guy has got way too much charisma....he is the democratic everyman (black, son of hard working immigrants, not born to wealth, and smart as a whip)... he will stir the pot....

as far as the country thing....it all begins with the individual, ANYWHERE, and works out from there....you're doin fine, keep it up (just avoid the court jester here )

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by iltos

you can be sure you will barrack obama on the democratic ticket very soon...the guy has got way too much charisma....

Yeah he is incredible. Reminds me of the charisma that Kennedy originally had before he was President. He will go really far if he keeps his nose clean, unlike bush who snorts coke

[Tipacanoe]

We simply HAVE TO vote bush OUT of office, or the deficit will grow so large that it will be a bigger problem to our country than the terrorist!

It's a deliberate tactic of the right wing of the Republican party to bankrupt America. They want a republic they can control like a banana republic. If the state is bankrupt, it can't restrain their rape of the majority of the population.

In many ways, the US has always been a banana republic with its vigilante mentality and disdain for rule of law, and a peaceful society.

Tip

".....as I see it today, these politicians in particular were in fact molded by the mob itself, guided
by its yearnings and daydreams...Certainly the masses roared to the beat set by Hitler's and
Goebbel's baton, yet they were not the true conductors. The mob determined the theme." - Albert
Speer, Inside the Third Reich.

"The Germans imposed the Nazi tyranny on themselves." William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of
the Third Reich.

[combsdon]

Originally Posted by combsdon

.....yup....read in todays paper that we (USA) now have the largest deficit ever...........and you're gonna vote for whom ...........

......I was surprised how little play this got in the debate.......

[bassetman]

Present tactic, ignore the significant and attack the ridiculous!

[iltos]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Present tactic, ignore the significant and attack the ridiculous!

reality tv visits washington (don't forget to buy a honda...or a sleep number bed (and that new cleanser)...oh, yeah...remember beer, too!!

[Tipacanoe]

.I was surprised how little play this got in the debate.......

Yes.

As I recall, the senator spoke to the matter in his own remarks on the economy many times. I have no recollection of the Pres saying anything about it.

I missed the second debate.

However, I don't have a clear recollection of any of the men who posed the questions actually asking the candidates to discuss the outcomes of running ever increasing huge deficits, eg the potential for run away inflation and the impact of that on people.

Nor do I recall any of the commentators in the post debates discussing it much although I just tuned in for 15 - 30 mins or so.

I guess most commentators rely on people like Greenspan to advise them on the potential for alarm. I must say he has spoken about this with great moderation while at the same time saying enough to cover his ***. Here's one analysis of the situation and what Greenspan and others have to say about it in the context of stock market outlook and consumer spending:

"Another area of wide concern among economists is the federal budget deficit. According to Greenspan, "the deficit is more likely to decline than to increase in the year ahead" as the economy improves. While we are uncertain about the absolute dollar value of the deficit next year, it seems likely that the deficit as a percentage of GDP will drop as the economy continues to grow.

Greenspan goes on to say, however, that the longer term outlook for the budget deficit is troubling. He warns that "with the baby boomers starting to retire in a few years and health spending continuing to soar, our budget position will almost surely deteriorate substantially in coming years if current policies remain in place." Greenspan suggested a renewed commitment to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the key provisions of which expired in 2002, as one tool in a comprehensive effort to restrict government spending in the future.

Healthcare costs appear to be a key culprit in our surging budget deficits. Certain government sources estimate that health spending is responsible for more than two-thirds of the increase in deficit spending.

Greenspan believes our longer-term federal spending commitments require better forecasting and adherence to strict disciplines. He points out that in 2008, the earliest members of the Baby Boom generation will turn 62, which also happens to be the earliest age for claiming Social Security retirement benefits. By 2011, they'll reach Medicare eligibility. The Fed chairnan has predicted that within 26 years, outlays for those two programs will consume almost 14 percent of GDP.

Keep in mind that Medicare costs are especially difficult to forecast because of unknown healthcare cost increases and possibly longer life expectancies in the future. "It is, therefore, imperative to make clear what real resources will be available so that our citizens can properly plan their retirements," Greenspan has said. "Re-establishing an effective procedural framework for budgetary decision making should be a high priority."

The Presidential candidates have opposing views on the best way to address our long-term fiscal health.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) says that Social Security should not be privatized. President Bush has called for individual ownership and control of Social Security accounts.

Kerry says the budget deficit is a problem and must be addressed by eliminating the Bush tax cut for those making more than $200,000 annually, and thereby increasing government revenues. Bush wants to leave the tax cuts in place and says GDP growth can reduce the significance of the budget deficit.

Large deficits for countries, corporations or individuals are not good things. While some debt is fine, less of it means a stronger balance sheet. The current U.S. budget deficit is 4.2 percent of GDP. While that is significant historically, it was equal to 6 percent of GDP in 1983. We may grow our way out of debt via an expanding economy, but not if we continue to increase spending. Increasing taxes is restrictive fiscal policy and will serve as an economic drag. It may be prudent to increase taxes at some point, but the economic recovery seems too fragile to do so now. Limiting spending is the key."

http://www.pbs.org/wsw/opinion/farr20040916.html

No doubt, if Bush is elected, he will seek to privatize, privatize, privatize such programs as SS and Medicare and seek to justify it on the basis of remarks like those of Greenspan. This will be their ruin. And it will eventually destroy the middle class in America which, arguably, is the real neo-con goal.

[AKA Arizona]

When was the last time the deficit shrunk? or has it just grown each year?