Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Lincoln Chafee: On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney went to work.

The centerpiece of their agenda was an unprecedented $1.6 trillion tax cut that took Congress by surprise. The magnitude of the cut caught even House Speaker Dennis Hastert off balance. That may have accounted for his candor, at a December 14, 2000, press conference, when he said that the across-the-board cut was too much; it would be bad public policy. No one would be able to understand fully the consequences of such a complex bill. He wanted to break the cuts down into their many parts and carefully consider one at a time, but he was quickly silenced and brought into line. After both Republican and Democratic presidents had worked hard for surpluses, and at dire political cost, why was the forty-third president now demanding this destructive round of tax cuts?

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

arbusto

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Links

More

Many senators in the chamber had been around in the 1980s when so much effort had gone into the Gramm-Rudman deficit reductions. Finance chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa and budget committee chairman Pete Domenici of New Mexico were among them. Many had been there in 1990 when the president's father, President George H. W. Bush, agreed to raise taxes to shrink the deficit, a big factor in his loss two years later. With presidential leadership exercised and political pain already endured, why would we suddenly want to turn the treasury upside down and shake out every last dime. To me, the tax cut was a stalking horse. The Cheney-Bush strategy behind the cut was to set the tone--to preempt the Congress not just on taxes but on every issue. It would tame any future resistance to a radical agenda by serving up this politically irresistible prize: lawmakers could go home and say they had voted to cut taxes. The White House was out to neuter Congress, and the minute Congress rolled over for the cuts, it set the stage for one-branch rule in America and all the consequences we live with today. The two aggressive personalities at the top of the executive branch had tested the Congress and had found it lacking. A coequal branch of government? In their wisdom, the Founders had given us power to respond when events demand that we check and balance an unwise president. I looked around in the Senate and saw few who had the courage to wield that vital power.

Every bully and blowhard in the world sets the terms of intimidation right off the bat. The time to stand up is sooner instead of later. My older brother, Zech, taught me that important lesson by example when I was in the third grade at Potowomut Elementary School in Warwick, Rhode Island. In front of a cheering schoolyard, he put up his fists and boxed a bully out of a bad attitude. But the president had our number the minute we meekly acquiesced to his radical tax policy, and that would serve him well when he wanted to start a war on the false threat of a Saddam Hussein poised to attack America with weapons of mass destruction.

Many Americans' first image of the Bush presidency is date-stamped September 11, 2001. They forget the pitched political battles of his first nine months in office. The central front in his war on Congress was this $1.6 trillion raid on the public purse.

The outcome was uncertain, given the dynamics of an evenly divided Senate. Democrats were largely opposed, but Georgia Democrat Zell Miller, a throwback to the precivil rights South, had defected and even signed on as a cosponsor of the Bush tax cuts. Democrats were especially worried that John Breaux of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska might waver. The Bush administration certainly put every bit of pressure they could on senators Breaux and Nelson back home, and on every other Democrat in a state that had voted Bush-Cheney.

The Democrats held steady, and in April, Ben Nelson, John Breaux, and I called a press conference to say we would use our votes to trim the $1.6 trillion to $1.25 trillion. If we could get one more Republican to stand with us, we could make it happen. We needed Jim Jeffords of Vermont and had been told to expect him at the press conference, but where was he? Stalling for time, Senator Breaux cracked jokes to keep an impatient media at least semi-entertained. Then the blue curtains at the edge of the Capitol press gallery parted and in walked the Vermonter, our critical vote.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

That is a great read.

Most peoples of this country are not aware that Cheney is a failed moil. It seems that he always wanted all there was to take.



Good find Arbusto, an interesting read.

It was only a distructive round of tax cuts because they did not cut spending to match. The tax cuts did exactly as intended what they intended, boost the economy. The president only has the power to propose a budget. Congress is the only one who can aprove a budget. Oh, and as an after thought, Congress is also the only one who can take us to war. They have all the power. They should get all the blame. I'm not saying this to defend Bush. This goes back further than him. It also goes both ways. Anytime in our history a president was given credit for something good the congress should get the credit also.

"The tax cuts did exactly as intended what they intended, boost the economy."

That is what they pretended but Alan Greenspan's low interest rates fueling the housing bubble is what fueled the economy. Notice when the bubble burst so did the economy, those tax cuts still in place. The right will claim that the tax cuts boosted the economy but there is no truth to the claim. Quite simply "trickle down" economics ALWAYS brings on recession because it simply does not trickle down.

After both Republican and Democratic presidents had worked hard for surpluses, and at dire political cost, why was the forty-third president now demanding this destructive round of tax cuts?

After this statement it renders the rest of the article as garbage.

If the writer is unable to understand and tell the truth here how can anyone actually believe this is nothing but a political hack towards bush.

Now is the time to actually bring out the truths about these two parties and their presidencial policies that have aided the rich and trounced on the middle and lower classes.

Pander corporate media is a violation of the first amendment ideas.

"The tax cuts did exactly as intended what they intended, boost the economy."

That depends on your definition of the economy.

The Bush tax cut for the rich
Under George W Bush, once again tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy become the pre-eminent policy focus and are hailed as the indispensable dynamo of prosperity while further expanding "free trade" to advance democracy. Bush tax and trade policies contribute to a new wave of income shift toward income disparity, combining the worst aspects of both the Reagan and Clinton eras, the former being an inequitable tax policy and the latter being a anti-labor trade policy. Not surprisingly, the income inequality gap accelerated at the fastest rate during the Bush period of 2000-2006, but the stage had been set by Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. In addition to tax and trade-driven income inequality, under George W Bush other new income-shifting policy initiatives were launched as well in health care cost shifting, retirement system restructuring, and legislated wage compression by government edict, targeting overtime pay for millions of hourly paid workers.


I suppose this is your type of successful economy.

Health care and pensions
Government agency rule changes allowed corporations to extract pension fund surpluses for general business use and/or to delay properly funding pension plans. Government bodies like the National Labor Relations Board directly aided corporate efforts to de-unionize while government deregulation and privatization of entire industries further decimated union membership ranks and undermined union bargaining effectiveness.

On the health front, government policy in the form of managed health care under Clinton and consumer-driven health care and health savings accounts under George W Bush encouraged corporations to more rapidly shift health care costs to workers.


www.atimes.com

This is you kind of economy too. Seems your economy is going and benefitting in the wrong direction.

"Income is all. Economic growth without income is a fantasy."

Now is the time to actually bring out the truths about these two parties and their presidencial policies that have aided the rich and trounced on the middle and lower classes.

The sad truth is that Americans foolishly believed that the political class would protect them from the corporations, played into the hands of the corporations.

"Most peoples of this country are not aware that Cheney is a failed moil.", Keith204

Until you mentioned it, I had never considered Cheney in that light. Now after reading your comment, the phrase is an appropriate one.

This is fascinating. It answers some questions I have had about Congress and the past 8 years.


"Most peoples of this country are not aware that Cheney is a failed moil. It seems that he always wanted all there was to take.

Posted by keith204 at 2008-05-02 06:36 PM"

The Jews have enough problems - don't try to push Darth Cheney off on us! He belongs soul-ey and completely to Satan.

"The Jews have enough problems"

Posted by DawnGlo


Sammy Davis Jr. ...

"The sad truth is that Americans foolishly believed that the political class would protect them from the corporations, played into the hands of the corporations."

Posted by Ray at 2008-05-03 08:10 AM

Yes the Party of Big Business fooled the American people by calling themselves the Party of Big Business.

Yes the Party of Big Business fooled the American people by calling themselves the Party of Big Business.

Which party is that anyway? I've never heard either of the two major political parties call themselves "the party of big business. Besides, both of the major parties are in the pockets of big corporations.

You do know that, don't you?

Goatman

Sure--the republicans have stood for union rights for decades.

moron.

Sure--the republicans have stood for union rights for decades.

And this has what to do with my point that democrats are also in the pockets of big business?

Yes the Party of Big Business fooled the American people by calling themselves the Party of Big Business.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-03 10:57


Waaa? BB should be careful who he is calling moron.

Thanks for the laughs. IDIOTS (well, most of you)

Big business is evil... get a grip you unemployeed fools.

Big business is evil

Like most everything in this universe, big business has its dark side. It also has its good side. It is human nature to dwell on the negative (how many news stories report the good things that happen on this planet?) so when the subject of big business comes up all we hear is evil, evil, evil.

I was being sarcastic.

Is that supposed to mean that while big business if evil, big government is good? Foolish nonsense.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's practically a law of human nature.

Your right, big business is evil, I think I'll quit my job and get one from a bum. Dang, I meant homeless person.

One more time, I was being sarcastic.

Bigness per se is not necessarily evil. That can only be judged by their actions. The evilness of big businesses I had in mind can be seen by the ones aligned with big government for subsidies and cartels.

Lincoln Chafee is a good guy. Had he had the nerve to resign from the Republican party and become a Democrat he would still be Rhode Island Senator.

And he is an Obama supporter, and would have been a delegate...

'The Jews have enough problems - don't try to push Darth Cheney off on us! He belongs soul-ey and completely to Satan.", Dawnglo

moil (moil)
intr.v. moiled, moiling, moils
1. To toil; slave.
2. To churn about continuously.
n.
1. Toil; drudgery.
2. Confusion; turmoil.

Moyel - Person (usually a rabbi) who performs circumcisions.


Homonyms. Easy to confuse the two words

And this has what to do with my point that democrats are also in the pockets of big business?

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-03 11:21 AM


Link?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

RSS Spec