The Bush Tax: What W Has Cost You

George W. Bush has financed all his colossal blunders with borrowed money. Not that he has to pay the bill. You do.

Now for the fun part--- adding up the bill. Better mix yourself a stiff drink. You're going to need it. If you don't do adult beverages, may I recommend something in a Schedule 1 Felony narcotic?

Since we're not running the Federal Reserve, we'll work in rough, but so far as I can tell, accurate back of the envelope calculations.

By the time President Bush leaves office, the national debt will have increased by about $4 trillion, according to figures cited by the Washington Post.

There's a lot of smoke in mirrors in the administration's budget projections, like making no allowances for realistic costs for the war, or for fixing the alternative minimum tax problem looming over the middle class and what are likely to be overly optimistic estimates about economic growth. Let's assume the numbers are even worse, but for the sake of finishing our math assignment, we'll use the information we have on hand.

Next we add $3 trillion for the cost of the war, according to the more conservative figure in the estimate ranging from $3 trillion to $5 trillion by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz..

There are about 100 million people who pay taxes in the United States.

Divide $7 trillion by 100 miliion and you find that it adds up to $70,000 per U.S. taxpayer.

Maybe it's time to freshen up that drink now.

For giggles, let's also assume we try to pay the bill over the same time frame we racked up the debt, in eight years.

Putting aside the fact that the debt continues to increase because of the interest due even assuming we balance the budget as soon as the next president takes office, that works out to $8750 per taxpayer per year.

If I were Obama or Clinton, I'd start talking about the epic fiscal mismanagement of the current administration, put a price tag on it and label it the Bush Tax.

"Sorry about that my fellow Americans, but we need to put our house in order and every one of us has got to pay for the mistakes of the last eight years. Unlike some of your other tax dollars which actually yield some benefit, this money has been wasted, but there's nothing we can do about it now but pay up and move on."

Remember Bill Clinton and the budget surplus and how we were giddy trying to figure out how to spend the money before we even paid off the accumulated debt of the Reagan and first Bush?

Fuggedaboutit. $70 thousand dollars per taxpayer? Not going to happen. Not anytime soon.

Anyone old enough to vote is likely to be paying for President Bush's mistakes for the better part of the rest of their life.

There's an evil genius behind the Bush Cheney strategy that relies on sinister fiscal duplicity, without which much of their treachery would not have been possible.

The lives lost resulting from this administration's mistakes are an abstract concept for the vast majority of Americans who have no relatives or close friends in the armed forces or who live in Iraq. If Americans had been forced to endure the presidency of George W. Bush on a pay as you go basis, it would have triggered a massive popular revolt that would have changed the course of recent history.

Unhappy Birthday: The Iraq War Turns 5

Be angry. Be very angry.

Nearly four thousand American troops dead. At least 90,000 Iraqi civilians killed, perhaps many, many more than that, since estimates vary widely.

When you consider them as statistics, it's just numbers. Every time you read, see or hear the story of the toll the war has taken on individual lives and you muliply that pain and suffering by gthe number of people affected, it's almost impossible to wrap your mind around the truly horrendous consequnces of George W. Bush's war of choice.

And for what? The argument to justify the war has changed many times since we disocuvered the first justification, the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and would use them to attack us, turned out to be a false.

Anyone who tries to make the case that we're safer now as a result of the war really needs to prove their point because the opposite appears to be the reality of the situation. Turns out most people don't a superpower that starts wars without any provocation. That anger helps fuel the religious fanatacism that leads people to become suicide bombers.

I don't feel safer. Do you?

Then there's the money.

Three trillion dollars, according to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz's estimate of what the war will cost when you add it all up.

Why does the Bush administration say it's only $500 billion? Stiglitz counts expenses that the White House conceals.

A professor at Columbia University, Stiglitz was the chief economist for the World Bank and, before that, the chief of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. His estimates are in a new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War."

He says his figures are conservative. Among the most startling:

$600 billion that Congress has appropriated so far
$520 billion to bring home troops and equipment
$590 billion in medical and disability payments to veterans
$280 billion to restore a depleted military
$615 billion in interest for a war financed entirely by borrowing
$370 billion as the war's impact on individuals including the loss of lifetime earnings by disabled veterans, interruptions in careers for reservists and their families.


When the war began, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld scoffed when Lawrence Lindsey, and advisor to President Bush, estimated the cost of the war at $200 billion. The Secretary of Defense called the estimate “baloney.“ Rummy’s deputy Paul Wolfowitz said Iraqi oil money could pay for reconstruction after the war.

Stiglitz’s figures assume American troops will leave Iraq in a few years. Imagine the cost of John McCain is right and the meter keeps running for another 100 years.

Democrats' Strategy: Make McCain W’s Siamese Twin

After some Republican activists started making an issue of using Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein, Democrats came up with signature middle initial for John McCain.

Could it be…. W?

Expect the democrats to beat this to death: the Bush/McCain War, the Bush/McCain recession, Bush/McCain airline flight delays, Bush/McCain traffic jam, Bush/McCain burned your dinner and so on. Every time you hear McCain, they’ll remind you he was also W’s yes-man.

After capturing the needed delegates for the Republican nomination by making a clean sweep of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, John McCain launched his general election campaign with a lofty promise.

“Our campaign must be and will be more than another tired debate of false promises, empty sound bites or useless arguments from the past that address not a single of America’s concerns for their family’s security”

Let’s hold him to that. Hopefully it will mean no more fanning the flames on fringe wedge issues. Sorry, I know it gins up righteous rage among some of my fellow Americans, but I think establishing universal health care, ending the colossal strategic blunder of the Iraq war and balancing the federal budget trumps whether a couple of guys burn a flag at their wedding.

McCain should be applauded for staking claim to an elevated level of debate. We’ll see if that extends to resorting to George W. Bush’s lexicon to defend the war. Next time you see him teeing off on the democrats on Iraq, ask yourself what defines “victory” and how many times President Bush has moved the goal posts on what our objectives are in this war that seems to have no end.

McCain dared the democrats to spell out how they will end the war without the withdrawal of American troops triggering an escalation of sectarian violence. On that front, he’s probably right. I suspect whoever the next president is, he or she will face limited options when it comes to President Bush’s war. We’ve now seen McCain back away from his statement that he’s fine with American troops staying for 100 years, so perhaps the democrats may have an impact even if they lose the election.

If it’s News, It’s News to the President

Remember when we found out that the first President Bush had no idea how much a gallon of milk cost?

After all he got his for free, courtesy of us the taxpayers so why should he give a damn.

If he was paying for it himself, the household staff would deal with it. Even if it was $100 a gallon, no problem, he’s rich.

Alas, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in the Bush clan.

During his press conference today, the president seemed startled that some industry analysts say it’s possible we could soon be paying $4 a gallon for gas.


QUESTION: What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now — facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing...

BUSH: Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gas?

QUESTION: A number of analysts are predicting $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

BUSH: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

I just did a google news search for “$4 gas.” 3040 news stories, and yet the President had no clue.

Now that he knows, what advice does he have for struggling consumers?

A. Make tax cuts for billionaires permanent

B. Keep tax brakes worth $18 billion for oil companies making record profits

C. Drill for oil in ANWAR

D. All of the Above

E. There is no E


OK, he did talk about renewable sources of energy after a while, but he still lives in a bubble.

Many President suffer from this disconnect from the reality that dominates the lives of most people.

Hopefully the person who takes over from the George W. Bush will remember all the sad stories they’ve heard from people while they are campaigning do a better job of paying attention to everyday issues like how much it costs to live if you don’t have all your expenses paid as a fringe benefit of your job.

McCain Takes Aim at the Kevlar Candidate

Pundits used to refer to Ronald Reagan as the Teflon President because nothing seemed to stick to him. Enter the 21st century Gipper: The Kevlar Candidate.

So far, Barack Obama has proven practically bullet proof against whatever Hillary Clinton has launched in his direction. Some of the shots from her husband have even ricocheted back and wounded Hillary.

But she’s not the only one searching for something in their arsenal that can put the hurt on Barack.

In his victory speech last night after winning the Wisconsin primary, John McCain had fond words for pesky but now practically irrelevant opponent Mike Huckabee and saved his hollow points rhetoric for Obama.

“Will we heed the appeals for change that ignore the lessons of history and lack confidence in the intelligence and ideals of free people?” McCain said. “I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.”

Translation: voting for Obama means the terrorists win.

“Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan stand and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?”

My, my, my. If these two ever get back on the Senate floor it’s going to be a chilly reunion. Maybe there’s a not so hidden agenda at work here. McCain would likely prefer Clinton rather than Obama as the democratic nominee. “Hillary” and “Clinton” are fighting words for a lot of hard-core Republicans and McCain desperately needs something to gin up some enthusiasm. If it’s not for him, then against her still works.

If and when the rhetoric fueled euphoria fades in Obama Nation, perhaps these issues may gain some traction. It may also be a preview of the rest of the campaign.

Danger Will Robinson! McCain raises legitimate questions about judgment, but the underlying strategy seems uncomfortably similar to the tactics our current president used to win the last election.

In the grand tradition of Joe Biden and Barack Obama, allow me to borrow from Gordon Gekko: Fear clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of what drives voters to make a decision. Fear is good. Fear works.

Bush’s War May Doom “Yes We Can” Bipartisan Dream

Are you one of the 70 percent of Americans who would like to time warp themselves right past the remainder of the Bush administration and start fresh on inauguration day?

Not so fast.

President Bush has left an enormous mess to clean up and the process could unravel all the idyllic visions many democrats have of the future.

Case in point, today’s thought provoking op-ed piece by David Brooks the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?hp

where he outlines an eerily plausible scenario on how a democratic president will likely have their lofty vision of a the future derailed in short order if they follow through with their campaign promises to bring American troops home soon after taking the oath of office.

“There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

“There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

“There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

“All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

“Because the Democratic candidates appear to agree on so much, they’ve never tested each other’s policy proposals or exposed each other’s assumptions. But governing means choosing, and reality will be unkind. The artificial unity between the Democratic center and the Democratic left would be smashed by the harsh choices of 2009.”

Remember how Bill Clinton tried to make good his promise to end the ban on gays in the military? His political capitol evaporated faster than you can get an airline clerk to reschedule you after a cancelled flight. Ending the war is more difficult by several orders of magnitude.

Thank you George W. Bush. Your legacy will live on well past January 20, 2009.