TW: I read the Economist's leader this week for the Obama presidency, it is like so many hopeful and complementary for Obama if chastened by the crises facing the new POTUS (will post on it tomorrow). So I figured I wonder what they had to say eight years ago, perhaps they tend to be optimistic for most new incumbents. It is an interesting read now that the results are in.
Two things struck me, one the relative calm or lack of crises as Bush entered office (although Economist warned of unforeseen events) and two the hope and expectation that Bush would be bi-partisan and inclusive (rut row...).
Net net, of the five priorities Economist mentioned as the perceived pillars of Bush's election, two were implemented to some degree- No Child Left Behind and the tax cut- with the tax cut ending up oriented far more towards the wealthy than the Economist anticipated.
In January 2001 obviously 9/11 was not foreseen, hence the radical tack towards unilateral invasion, torture and bellicosity was missed as well. The theme of "inclusiveness" prevalent in the piece would ultimately represent the antithesis of the Bush administration.
From Economist:
"...Mr Bush also inherits a country which may—note the qualification—be on the edge of a harsh economic downturn. Under Bill Clinton, many of the divisions that still beset the United States... were hidden by the balm of prosperity. Now they may reappear, just when America has also to start reforming its government in time for its demographic time-bomb: without structural change, by 2010 the government will begin to run out of money to pay for the pensions and health care that baby boomers like Mr Bush expect. Add the chance of a nasty foreign-policy surprise (Iraq? North Korea? Congo?), and it is not surprising that some people see this presidency as a poisoned chalice.
This surely underestimates both the job and the man. Most countries would love to have America’s problems;...As for Mr Bush, he has appointed an efficient-looking cabinet (albeit one that might usefully have had a more bipartisan flavour). And, unlike Mr Clinton, he has made his legislative priorities clear. Mr Bush will concentrate on the five issues that he has talked about since the primaries—Social Security, education, health care, a big tax cut and a missile-defence scheme.
Before discussing the merits of these plans, it is worth noting that a similar approach worked in Texas. When he became governor in 1995, Mr Bush concentrated, as promised, on just four things. Through a mixture of cajolery and compromise, he got broadly what he wanted. More important, he also did so in an “inclusive” way...This combination of efficiency and inclusiveness would be particularly useful now...
...So cut taxes, by all means; but not $1.6 trillion-worth. And look for ways to do so that chime with that inclusive side of Mr Bush’s political character. The current plan gives 60% of the proceeds to people who earn more than $100,000. Rather than cutting top rates of tax, it would be better to raise even further the thresholds for poorer taxpayers. Push ahead with the plan to abolish the marriage penalty (which penalises almost all who decide to get hitched), but hold back the abolition of inheritance tax (which affects only the very rich).
Scaling back his ambitions would leave Mr Bush more political capital and money to concentrate on the social reforms that should be the heart of his legacy..."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QSRVDS
No comments:
Post a Comment