Political Capital
Has anyone else noticed that over the last two weeks Bush and the Republicans are only talking about issues that are likely to fail in Congress? Immigration reform is not likely until next year and the gay marriage constitutional amendment was DOA. Even the Estate Tax Repeal is unlikely to go anywhere this term.
To top it off, there is no major policy legislation of any kind on the horizon in this election year. I mean, a rational response to low poll numbers would be to pass legislation that is highly popular, but they aren't going to do that. The Republicans are not going to do anything for the rest of the year.
My guess is that this falls into my "weather channel" theory of politics that the Republicans practice so well.
The idea is that instead of running on accomplishments, you highlight problems which rile your voters and promise them solutions only after the next election. It is an unstated bargain which only works if voters believe that the current lack of action is due to forces beyond the majority's control.
It's part of the majority as minority, values as victims, impression that the Repubs have somehow cultivated among their base. It's not their fault if things don't get done, it's the Democrats. (The same Democratic juggernaut that is portrayed as weak kneed, with no agenda, uncoordinated, and in decline.)
Also, does anyone else find it odd how low Bush's profile was yesterday after the Zarqawi death? It's almost like they didn't want the unpopular Bush out there to distract from the good news. Or is it that they know that the killing will have little real impact, and didn't want Bush to have another "Mission Accomplished" moment? I just found his absence from the stage very odd.
While I'm talking vague politics, what are the possibilities and implications of a slowing economy? Before we get into a debate on the strength or weakness of the economy, I do understand the difference between Macro and Micro. I know that real wages have stagnated for years and inflation is taking it's bite, but significantly lately, the macro-numbers are starting fade and sag and show signs of some real problems, and that's a big deal.
Because no matter the arguments about distribution of wealth and income, a falling tide will lower all boats, and while Bush was getting no real political support for the "boom" he was claiming, I feel certain at this point he will take the blame if things start going south.
It's just another headwind this administration won't be able to handle. I think that's the element that may Bush approval approval numbers into the 20's. Can we call him the worst president then?
Just how much have these guys cost us?
To top it off, there is no major policy legislation of any kind on the horizon in this election year. I mean, a rational response to low poll numbers would be to pass legislation that is highly popular, but they aren't going to do that. The Republicans are not going to do anything for the rest of the year.
My guess is that this falls into my "weather channel" theory of politics that the Republicans practice so well.
The idea is that instead of running on accomplishments, you highlight problems which rile your voters and promise them solutions only after the next election. It is an unstated bargain which only works if voters believe that the current lack of action is due to forces beyond the majority's control.
It's part of the majority as minority, values as victims, impression that the Repubs have somehow cultivated among their base. It's not their fault if things don't get done, it's the Democrats. (The same Democratic juggernaut that is portrayed as weak kneed, with no agenda, uncoordinated, and in decline.)
Also, does anyone else find it odd how low Bush's profile was yesterday after the Zarqawi death? It's almost like they didn't want the unpopular Bush out there to distract from the good news. Or is it that they know that the killing will have little real impact, and didn't want Bush to have another "Mission Accomplished" moment? I just found his absence from the stage very odd.
While I'm talking vague politics, what are the possibilities and implications of a slowing economy? Before we get into a debate on the strength or weakness of the economy, I do understand the difference between Macro and Micro. I know that real wages have stagnated for years and inflation is taking it's bite, but significantly lately, the macro-numbers are starting fade and sag and show signs of some real problems, and that's a big deal.
Because no matter the arguments about distribution of wealth and income, a falling tide will lower all boats, and while Bush was getting no real political support for the "boom" he was claiming, I feel certain at this point he will take the blame if things start going south.
It's just another headwind this administration won't be able to handle. I think that's the element that may Bush approval approval numbers into the 20's. Can we call him the worst president then?
Just how much have these guys cost us?
posted by mikevotes at
8:51 AM
9 Comments:
Bush's low profile yesterday is no mystery. He was probably celebrating Zarqawi's death with a bottle of Jack Daniels, a few lines of coke, and the official White House porn queen, Mary Carey.
By
Anonymous, at 9:01 AM
Yeah, but that hasn't stopped him from coming out and making unintelligible comments before.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:12 AM
I think the White House was carefully using proxies to spread the good news about Zarqawi's death and suggest that the Zarqawi killing, coupled with the naming of ministers to the security posts, is the start of a period of good news from Iraq. Boehner, Frist, and a few others from the Hill, along with GOP "strategists" making their appearances on CNN and MSNBC, did most of the heavy lifting yesterday.
The White House knows they get a little bounce out of this for a month or two at most. They know they've been over-mythologizing Zarqawi for quite a while now and they also know that killing him will really do little to change the amount of violence or sectarian discord in Iraq. Those seeds were sowed by Zarqawi a few years ago. I bet behind the scenes they're thinking, "OK, we have a brief respite from the bad news, let's capitalize on this while we can."
Good point about the macro economy affecting Bush's numbers. If the market volatility continues, if stagnation hits, the Wall Street base is going to be pissed at him along with the rest of us. So far Larry Kudlow and gang still love their preznit. Let's see how they like him if the Dow falls 10% and inflation and interest rates continue to rise while GDP falls.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 9:13 AM
That's a pretty good analysis on Zarqawi, although I wonder just how much of the "proxy" talk is controlled and how much is 2008 candidates trying to get their faces associated with this.
And on the economy, I just keep wondering what Paulson, the new Treasury sec out of wall street was thinking. He must've seen the numbers. Did he think he could act to turn it around?
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:01 AM
How much have these guys costs us?
Alot. Micro and macro. A whole lot.
You know this. You're the one with the blog title "Born at the Crest of Empire".
By
Greyhair, at 11:52 AM
Americans will have to learn to live on lower wages. The world market, where employees make almost 2/3's less than Americans, will force lower wages in America.
What has happened in the airline and auto industries, will happen in all our companies. As we all know unions are dead and the remaining union contract jobs are being eliminated.
30 years ago, I worked as a bartender. Without experience, I started at $10 an hour plus tips. That job today pays $5.50 an hour plus tips.
In the mid 1970's I also worked in a shipping dept. starting at $10 an hour. I saw in the paper last Sunday that the starting pay for that same job is $11 an hour.
Not to mention that back then both companies gave me benefits that paid 100%, there was no co-pay or even a small % that I had to pay if I went to a Doctor.
No matter what happens with the war or our government spending policies, we will be rushing to lower pay and fewer benefit jobs.
This will change Americans lifestyles dramaticly and be the first time in generations that we have been worse off than our parents generation.
By
Unknown, at 2:06 PM
I know, Greyhair. It has also cost us in in world dominance as well as influence which translates to serious money over time. It was more a conversation starting rhetorical.
(And if your stagflation tracking comes to fruition, it's going to be even more. Alot more.)
Time,
those are amazing conrete examples, and I will stipulate to the point that within the current policies and market structures some adjustments have to be made, but $200 billion in tax cuts to the rich equates to about $750 per head(not per worker $1,500-$2,000)
$1,500 per worker, I calculate to be about $ .94 /hour, and that doesn't count Iraq or the national debt's influence on interest rates or anything else which are all substantial sums as well.
You're right that US wages are out of whack with the world, but there are also policies enacted by this administration which have a direct impact on that pay rates.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:16 PM
To make clear,
I am upset that the wage situation is this way. I believe that it is unavoidable. I believe we should try to raise the rest of the worlds wage standards, not watch ours fall.
I try not to get political because it's not all President Bush's fault but:
By the time Mr. Bush leaves office, the national debt will be almost 10 Trillion dollars. He has yet to veto one spending bill and his answer is to shift the rising costs back to the states.
The only thing the President has cut, are rich peoples taxes. We are expected (like hungry dogs) to wait for the table scrapes. That won't work.
I think it's wrong to leave this problem to future generations, espically if they face lower wage standards. We must pay as we go.
Simply put, cutting taxes while spending more money leads to disaster.
By
Unknown, at 3:05 PM
I agree, that's kind of the point of this blog. As I believe that the American empire actually crested sometime in the late sixties, I think it is critically important, far more important than at any other time in our history, that this country have extremely capable and canny leadership.
It could mean the difference between a post imperial Europe as just another player, or a Russian style implosion. Neither example is dead on to the US, but they represent some of the range of possibilities.
The difference between shrewd stewardship, and the delusional "new american century" crowd we have now, will be very dramatic in twenty to fifty years time.
As a country we are in the process of readjustment, but much like so many other areas, this administration is operating seperate from that reality. That affects decision making which affects the future.
And, I think Bush may well be blamed as the disaster point in the mid to far future. The costs from this administration's policies are going to be unimaginable and they will eventually be passed down upon the people of America.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home