I like how Gene pretends 9/11, the tech stock bubble bursting and the recession never happened. Or, if they did, the administration had nothing to do with surviving and thriving after them.

Gene wants to see the glass as perpetually half empty. Bleh.

Daiwa

First 9/11 was not the fault of Bush. It took place when he was president but is not the result of any of his policies. I could also have a list of other issues but the over arching importance of the Iraq War and the huge increase in the National Debt will have such a profound impact on our country for DECADES to come compared with anything else. They are also the result of the major policies of the Bush Administration.

Oh grow up already Col. Bush has done nothing to this country compared to it's own citizens. The average American is too lazy to get up and make a difference, they don't care. Todays generation cares more about how much money they can make on Ebay and a few of the generations before care more about themselves and not this country, otherwise we wouldn't be were we are today. Blame a single man all you want, or blame his entire administration, but in the end the reality is, we all sat here and allowed every bad thing that has happened to this country for the past 250 years, because we don't know how to stand on our own 2 feet, we need the Gov't to baby us all.

This is probably the most reasonable and accurate article that COL Gene has written, or at least that I have read. The absence of inflammatory statements written in all caps is refreshing.

Technically, Iraq was discussed at the first National Security Council meeting, if one accepts Paul O'Neill's version, not the first Cabinet meeting, but that is nit-picking. See link]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml">Link

At the first Cabinet meeting, President Bush said "I am going to talk a little bit about reminding people that a dollar spent is somebody's money, and that we expect there to be lean budgets, good stewards of the people's money." I think that one can argue that that has not happened.

Daiwa makes a valid point. In 2000, who had have predicted that Enron and MCI would go bankrupt? Or that the World Trade Center would be a hole in the ground? And if one did offer such dire predictions, who would have predicted that the US economy would largely recover in only a few years?

Quoting from COL Gene's article "Just how negative Iraq will be will depend to some extent of the events on the ground during the reminder of his term" may be the most accurate and even-tempered thing that I have ever heard you say. We don't really know how history will record this era. It is an interesting question.

Good article, COL Gene, and I appreciate how well it was written.

Larry Kuperman

Thank you. Please take a look at my article about Social Security.

I am not an expert on American politics but I get worried when I read books with people like Ron Cusack saying (not a quote), that Bush is not quite with it (i.e. not being up to speed), on the finer points of policy. Could he be another Harding? Is this a President being "propped up" by an ill-advised cabinet?

I don't know--just seeking answers.

adnauseam

If we look at the experience GWB brought to the presidency, one would have to conclude he did not have an extensive portfolio. In fact the joke at the outset of his administration was that his cabinet and the VP were far more knowledgeable then the President.

I do believe on the issues of Iraq and the Tax and spend policies, Bush was the Driver and sought support from others rather then being lead around on those two issues by others.

First off, I'll echo Larry, this is one of the most reasonable articles you have written in a long time.

Prs. Reagan's detractors always said that the deficits would be his legacy too, but 20 years later the only people who mention them are those who feel the need to remind everyone. If we all need reminding, it must not be part of Reagan's legacy.

I think the same thing will happen with Prs. Bush. Legacies are much more about the social aspects of a president's administration than the economic.

Prs. Bush's legacy will be based on terrorism and illegal immigration. For terrorism, he will be remembered as the president who fought back. Those who are glad he fought back will see him as the one who "finally abandoned the 'lay back and take it' policies of past presidents. His detractors will continue ask "where's bin laden" (just as JFKs detractors continue to point out that Castro is still in power in Cuba).

The war in Iraq (of course) will be part of his legacy, but whatever the next administration does with it will take center stage. In our past wars, the president in office at the beginning of the war is remembered for it, but the administration at the end of the war is almost always defined by it. One thing I'll be interested to see is if history books of the future set the beginning as March 3, 03, or Aug 2, 90.

We are already seeing this. Since the return to hostilities with Iraq people have asked "what is Prs. Bush going to do", but since the democrats won control of the House and Senate there has been a shift to "what will Pelosi and Reid do" about Iraq? I think the same will happen with the next president.

Either way Gene, good article!

ParaTed2K

The Democrats have said they will NOT cut off funding for Iraq. Thus they can try and pressure Bush but in the end, any changes in policy in Iraq MUST come from Bush not Congress.

The reminder of the impact of both the debt Reagan and Bush have imposed come up EVERY year when Congress passes the Budget. Since 1981, the Congress and the American tax payers have paid $7 Trillion in interest on the national debt. If the national debt had not been increased by Reagan and Bush, we would have paid just over $2 Trillion dollars in those same 25 Years. In 1980 we were paying about $80 Billion per year. In 2005 we paid $406 Billion and will be heading for $500 Billion by 2010. Thus every two years American taxpayers will pay a Trillion dollars in interest and that will NEVER stop until we repay that debt. How can we repay the debt when the Bush plan is to cut the annual deficit in half and still add over $200 Billion each year to the problem?

Those may be reminders for you Gene, but for the average American the word "deficit" doesn't come to mind much when you mention Reagen.   As far as Iraq, as I said, the buzz has already started to shift from Bush to Congress.  We'll see what happens over the next two years, but from the early indicators, the Democrat leadership in Congress is already calling the shots. 

ParaTed2k

I agree many members of the public do not associate "Deficit" with Reagan. But the facts clearly show that is just what resulted from what many call " Supply Side" economics where the theory is that when taxes are cut for the wealthy, they will invest that tax saving and create new business that is to replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts and in the case of Reagan (and Bush) also pay for the added spending. The truth is that tax cuts to the wealthy DO stimulate business investment. What is NOT true is that the level of business growth from those tax cuts DOES NOT provided enough NEW tax revenue to replace the lost revenue from the cuts or pay for the added spending.

That was the Reagan promise in 1981 - cut taxes and the budget will be balanced by 1985. The Reagan projection assumed an average GDP growth of 6% to make his promise of a balanced budget become reality. He achieved about a 3% average GDP Growth and started 19 years of annual budget deficits that took the National Debt in 1980 from LESS then a Trillion to 4 Trillion at the end of the Reagan term. Those annual deficits continued adding to the National Debt during Bush 41 and most of Clinton. By 2001 the National debt was $5.7 Trillion or UP $4.8 Trillion from 1981.

The policy Bush 43 has been following is JUST like Reagan--Cut Taxes while increasing spending. It has produced the very same result but at an even faster pace then Reagan. Bush took the deficit from $5.7 Trillion to $8.7 Trillion in 6 years and we are headed for $10 Trillion by 2010. In addition the Bush Fiscal Policy will leave the budget out of balance by over $200 Billion per year even if Bush is able to keep his promise of cutting the annual budget deficit is half by the end of his term. Many believe he will not even be able to achieve cutting the annual deficit in half by the end of 2008. The Bush policy never balances the budget much less begin repaying the National Debt we have amassed.

To: ParaTed2K: The difference is: Reagan had spunk and charisma. Dubya has neither and he is ill-advised.

adnauseam

Reagan helped our country look at our self better and the world look at us in a better way. Bush had done neither. He has created the most negative feeling both internally and externally of any President I could name!