March 25, 2004
Political Week in Review
Pres. Bush is in the N.E. defending his record on jobs and anti-terrorism. He is spending this time and money to shore up his record because it is under major attack from a number of directions. Both Democratic and Republican party members of Congress agree that jobs are critically important to both the economy and the November elections, and they both agree, the jobs growth is a major disappointment to economic recovery. On the other hand, 2003 saw our economy grow at a healthy 4.1 percent pace, a point that is sure to be touted in Bush’s speeches and ads from this point forward.
On anti-terrorism, the President is under fire from the 9/11 Investigation Commission which has brought forth testimony indicating that both Presidents Bush and Clinton failed to use intelligence they had to defend American lives on 9/11/2001. President Bush stated today he did not know that planes would be used to attack targets in the U.S. However, the 9/11 Commission has evidenced that our Intelligence Community did in fact know that planes may likely be used in attacks and that the targets such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were possible targets. Bush’s critics are calling Bush’s statement an outright lie. The question of whether the President knew of this intelligence prior to 9/11 has not been answered. The question of whether the President should have known this information is just now being raised.
Of course the main controversy centers on Richard Clarke’s testimony that the Administration was so obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein that they misinterpreted intelligence regarding an impending al-Queda attack and failed to take necessary steps to defend against what became the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Clarke’s credibility is the primary target by conservatives both on the Commission and in the media. Nonetheless, Republican attempts to pin Clarke in his own testimony were unsuccessful as Clarke demonstrated remarkable poise and calm in responding to court like inquiries by panel members.
While the President has agreed to testify before the Commission, the person with probably the most detailed knowledge of the policies and decisions on anti-terrorism before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice has refused to testify under oath and in public before the Commission. Ms. Rice is becoming a prime target of progressive attacks for what appears to them to be increasingly a case of having something to hide. While the Administration argues that commanding her testimony is a breach of Executive Branch powers and rights, progressives argue that no person in government should be above investigation by the public’s representatives. This is an issue that is sure to fester for months to come and may become a campaign issue.
The stock market tumbled last week amid jitters over terrorist attacks in Spain and Israel, and bombs being found in various locations, as well as intelligence being reported that the U.S. is going to be targeted again, and Donald Rumsfeld has stated it could happen tomorrow. Investors lost big as the markets tumbled, the Dow Jones Average losing almost 500 points in recent weeks. Bearish sentiments are replacing the previous bullish enthusiasm that has lifted the Dow from 7000 plus to over 10,000 since 9/11 according to MSNBC today.
Lou Dobbs began a series on TV over a month ago called The Exporting of America. This program has helped raise the issues of outsourcing jobs to other countries by American corporations, and the transfer of ownership of American assets to foreign investors via America’s national debt and rising deficits. The program has put these issues in the headlines and on the campaign trail. Sen. Kerry is making the lack of jobs a central issue in his campaign and putting the President on the defensive on this issue as seen by his speeches today.
Polls are showing the race between Kerry and Bush neck and neck and the near half billion dollars being raised for campaigning by Kerry and Bush are now in play buying ads to tarnish the image if each candidate’s opponent. This may be an unprecedented spending year for a Presidential election in American history. Ad agencies are salivating.
Bush’s ads are focusing on Kerry’s Senatorial voting record making claims which are not factual about Kerry’s votes on raising taxes. The Bush camp is using votes that reflect Kerry’s votes for alternative amendments and bills that would not have included Bush’s tax cuts. Also included in the GOP claim of over 350 votes to increase taxes are votes on in which Kerry opposed the bills on issues other than the taxes included in them. Kerry’s camp has launched ads placing the jobless recovery and failure to provide troops and veterans with the funds they say are needed to keep military families from falling into poverty or bankruptcy.
Posted by David R. Remer at March 25, 2004 07:47 PMListen to this recent statement by Senator Frist cribbed from a CNN story:
“Frist also accused him of making a “theatrical apology” to the families of the terrorist victims at the outset of his appearance on Wednesday, saying it was not “his right, his privilege or his responsibility” to do so.”
What the hell is this supposed to mean? How does the 1st Amendment not apply to this form of speech? A personal appology is inappropriate? A recognition of the truth that everyone knows - that the government failed its citizens on 9/11? This is somehow wrong?
This sort of behavior is only wrong to the Bush Administration and it’s extremist allies, who are more interested in acolytes than advisors. This is just one more wacko-extremist point that frankly scares the crap out of most of us Americans.
(note, I’m not saying that all Bush allies are extremists - just some, like Frist, Delay, etc).
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 26, 2004 05:42 PMDavid—
I find Ms. Rice’s refusal to testify before the public reprehensible, but not at all surprising given the Bush Administration’s heretofore level of demonstrated arrogance and general distain for the public disclosures of its activities. I wonder, are they (the Bushies) aware that ours is a Republican form of government? Go Richard Clark!
I find it interesting and slightly amusing that the Bush Administration continues to drop egg on its own face over the Clark revelations; e.g. at first denying Clark’s account of events on September 12th, in which Bush almost demand a connection be predicted between Iraq and 9/11, but then today owning up to them after they were—as Clark stated they would be—collaborated by several senior Bush staffers. And Ms. Rice’s assertion (on some talk show or another) that Mr. Clark was at every senior level meeting dealing with counter-terrorism, but the White House press secretary stating that he was out of the loop, and not a part of said meetings. Ah, the smell of fried eggs with a touch of season salt and pepper.
As for the Market, I have once more retreated into the safe haven of Bonds where my money continues to grow. Could you image your Social Security retirement money in today’s volatile market?
I find it remarkable that any American can say with a straight face the G.W. Bush has been a great, or even marginal President, and that they fully support him.
yep, social security is much safer in the hands of the government than in the market! social security (at last estimate) will go broke in a couple of decades- the stock market, however, will likely be at another all-time high. Good thing we are making sure that the working poor’s money is in the system that is going to be broke than the one thats going to be at an all time high!!! But worry not- because the rich congressmen who refuse to move toward using the market (1) will be long dead when the bill FINALLY comes in; and those that wont be (2) are rich enough where they can invest their own money in the stock market and retire well, while the working poor have to depend upon the grace of the government to have a decent retirement, since any surplus money they would have to invest in the market is taken from then at 12.5% to pay for social security. Thats our “compassionate society” at work :)
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 26, 2004 08:32 PMlet me put it another way- if social security, given its current sustaintability, output per dollar put in ect, were a stock on the market NO ONE WOULD BUY INTO IT! Its a stupid investment, given the rate of return and the high risk of the eventually crash of it. yet, even though no rational person would buy into it voluntarily, we force everyone to buy into it by government compulsion. then again, what do individuals know about saving for their own retirement?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 26, 2004 08:36 PM“Mr. Clark was at every senior level meeting dealing with counter-terrorism, but the White House press secretary stating that he was out of the loop, and not a part of said meetings.”
Not just Mr. McClellan… the Vice President himself said this to that most impartial of journalists, Rush Limbaugh. I was fortunate enough to hear it live. Chalk it up on the list of inconsistencies (or misrepresentations - or lies, perhaps) that the Administration has been accumulating.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 27, 2004 08:19 AMV. Edward:
It absolutely amazes me that people like you fight to the death to protect personal freedoms, like speech, abortion etc, as a matter of choice. Yet you then jump up and deny people the choice of how to invest their money.
Misha is correct that if SS were a stock, no one would buy it based on its performance. And its worthy to note that not all of SS is ever intended to be privatized—-only a percentage of it is.
How hypocritical of you to defend only those choices that YOU think are worthy of defense, in the name of freedom of choice. If you truly were in favor of freedom of choice, it would flow through into all aspects.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 27, 2004 09:25 AMjoe, this argument of yours does not wash for one simple reason. You argue from the point of view of the majority of Americans in this country don’t want Social Security, a guaranteed safety net for retirement. Fact is, polls show the majority of Americans DO want Social Security, and this being a democracy where programs like defense spending and public school spending are issues of the people, Social Security is a legitimate wish of the majority of Americans.
You are trying to argue that if a program denies a minority of their will, it is a wrong and bad program. If that is the case, we should do away with Income tax altogether and let the those who wish to, volunteer funds to the government for national defense. Kinda sorta doesn’t work when put in that perspective, does it?
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2004 12:39 PMThe govt. takes about 15% of MY income just in social security. Let’s see, assuming I never get a raise and ignoring even a passbook savings account interest, my employer and I contribute about $7.5k a year. Assuming I have 30 years more of work, I will contribute about $225k. And for this contribution, I will get, at most, about a grand a month. So, in order for me to recoup my investment, I will have to draw from it for over 20 years. And if I am unlucky enough to die the day before I retire, I get nothing. I can leave nothing to my children, and my wife has little claim to it. And what do I get for my contribution? The right to put even more money away in various retirement accounts to cover the shortfall that I will not get from the govt. So, in addition to the 15% of my salary I cannot claim, I have to put an additional 15% away so I will not be eating cat food in a few years. And, if you did not know it, the Supremes have already said that you have no legal right to any money in your “account”. So, Congress can - and most assuredly will since they already have - continually raise the retirement age and lessen the benefits and you can’t do squat.
We should do away with the income tax. A govt with no money, has little power, and likely will not trample your rights.
This country was founded on the assumption of limited government. A govt which takes over half of my income is not limited, it is confiscatory.
Todd, you need to see an attorney or go back & take a refresher on math. On a paycheck of 2526.56 FICA is 176.64 which = 6.9 percent.
Unless your too generous for words and are volunteering to the last generation more than is required by law.
You really should get some facts before making arguments like the one above. Your wife is entitled to your benefits if you die before retirement, called survivor benefits, and your children as well up to a certain age which varies depending on whether they are in school or not.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for changing it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 28, 2004 04:29 AMDavid, the govt also takes the same percentage from my employer. I alluded to that when I mentioned my yearly contribution. The fact that it is paid by my employer is immaterial. But good job addressing the substantive points.
Posted by: Todd at March 29, 2004 10:47 PMThe fact that it is paid by your employer is very material to how much you are paying to the government; half of what you claimed. More disinformation exposed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 1, 2004 10:18 PM
