Have historians been unfair to Dubya?

Prof. Stephen Knott argues that Dubya has been treated unfairly by historians making their Best & Worst Presidents lists.  (As if their lists matter to anybody, but let's forget that for now....)

There are two ways to evaluate the success of a U.S. president: by what the evaluator thinks a president did right or wrong; or by how effectively a president got what he wanted; furthermore, one could evaluate how enduring were the gains a president won.

By the first measure, many people, including many Republicans, think Bush was a failure. But partisanship, ideology and ego affect our judgment, so it's one of those things best left to argue over beers. By the second measure, however, I'd argue that Bush was pretty darn successful, unfortunately. And his "achievements" endure.

Why do I say "unfortunately"? We had a recent example. Last night, when noting the nation's reaction to the apprehension of the Boston bombers and their alleged Islamist beliefs, I posted: "It's still Dubya's America and we're just living in it... including President Obama."

That is, I meant that Dubya and his team (including his team at FOX News and Clear Channel) have been extremely successful in framing our view of Muslims, so successful that even President Obama seems prisoner to our prejudices.  The Left is silent while Obama is under constant pressure by the Right to link the entire religion of Islam to terrorism.

Here's the latest bulletin from the conservative GWOT Language Police: "The language of terror," by Charles Krauthammer.  You have to read through a lot of nothing to get to Krauthammer's point at the very end:

Obama has performed admirably during the Boston crisis, speaking both reassuringly and with determination. But he continues to be linguistically uneasy. His wavering over the word terrorism is telling, though in this case unimportant. The real test will come when we learn the motive for the attack.

As of this writing, we don’t know. It could be Islamist, white supremacist, anarchist, anything. What words will Obama use? It is a measure of the emptiness of Obama’s preferred description — “violent extremists” — that, even as we know nothing, it can already be applied to the Boston bomber(s). Which means, the designation is meaningless.

You see, it makes all the difference in the world that the Boston bombers' alleged motivation was Islamist beliefs, and that our President says so. Why? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? Because it's ammunition for those who want to categorize all Muslims, including legal U.S. residents and citizens, as suspected terrorists. There's no other reason for the Right to police this language issue so severely. 

And as George Orwell warned us, language controls our thoughts. Control our language, control our thoughts. That is just one "achievement" of the successful George W. Bush "imperial" presidency, but it's a mighty one.

How about some more?  Bush's Great War on Terra (GWOT) continues and even escalates: with drone attacks, G'itmo, sanctioned rendition and torture, domestic spying and Internet surveillance, prosecuting government whistle blowers, and assassinating U.S. citizens when they are overseas. Obama continues Bush's extra-constitutional practice of presidential signing statements. Bush's occupations of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq are inexorable; Obama cannot or will not get out of them. Deregulated Wall Street banks may still gamble, legally, with depositors' and taxpayers' free money and are now Too Bigger To Fail. Deregulated for-profit colleges that live on government-backed student loans still hold the majority of student debt, now at $1 trillion. The budget of Bush's Department of Homeland Security now rivals the Pentagon's. Bush's unfunded Medicare Advantage entitlement is still wildly popular even among seniors in the Tea Parties... yet to put Medicare's finances back in order requires cutting or reforming Medicare Advantage, giving Republicans the opportunity to accuse Democrats of "cutting Medicare." Clinton's federal assault-weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004; meanwhile right-to-carry and concealed-carry laws were passed in most states with Bush's encouragement, even as mass shootings increased.  And speaking of guns, Obama ironically got blamed for Bush's "Fast and Furious" "gunwalking"/drug-interdiction program by the ATF. And finally, Bush's unaffordable tax cuts on the very wealthy are now sacrosanct even among Democrats who once fought them, even in the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, with the two aforementioned wars still on the nation's credit card, unpaid for.  

As a result of all this and more, Bush increased our national debt 91 percent ($5.9 trillion), and yet somehow escapes blame for it; meanwhile spineless Democrats are ready to apologize for Obama's deficits (totaling $4.9 trillion or a 41 percent increase over FY 2009) caused by Bush's Great Recession and two unfinished wars. For that political magic act, we are compelled to acknowledge that Dubya was a brilliant politician. Obama is a dunderhead by comparison.

I haven't read Knott's book, but based on its title, Rush to Judgment: George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and His Critics, it probably highlights Bush's achievements in fighting terrorism.  If that's so, then Knott has an excellent case to make that Bush got everything he wanted and more, i.e. he was pretty darn successful. Too bad for us. 

UPDATE (04.24.2013): Ralph Nader repeats a lot of what I've said in his op-ed: "Obama Is Comfortable With Bush's Inferno." 

UPDATE (04.26.2013):  Here's an acerbic take on Dubya's strategy of "Keep Quiet and Hope They Forget" by Alexandra Petri: "George W. Bush was the greatest president of all time, ever."  It's working.  Dumbo has outsmarted us again.  [Facepalm.]

George W. Bush is victim of a rush to judgment

By Stephen F. Knott

April 20, 2013 | Washington Post

URL: http://wapo.st/17y2whL

DC Johnston: Orwellian tax talk

Reading this just makes me angry and sad, because as Johnston points out, the Stupid and the Avaricious usually win. Stupid people want to believe, and avaricious people want to convince them, that we can cut everybody's taxes and create more revenue and thousands of jobs, just like children want to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Get this through your heads, folks: Tax collections are down 31.5 percent compared to 2001, after adjusting for inflation. That's your budget deficit.

We, our children and grandchildren are victims of Republicans' fetish for cutting taxes at all costs.

To restore fiscal sanity, federal taxes on the rich -- especially the top 1 percent -- have to go up, and it's not a matter of class warfare, or even fairness at this point -- it's simple math. Nobody else has any money. Raising taxes on the 47 percent who, after credits and deductions, pays no federal income tax would significantly increase the nation's misery but not its tax collections.

Orwellian tax talk

By David Cay Johnston

October 11, 2011 | Reuters

Political tax talk is becoming Orwellian: Secrecy is Democracy. Auditors Reduce Collections. Tax Cheats Will Be Caught With Fewer Auditors.

Let's start in Kansas, where the Lawrence Journal-World broke the news on Sunday that economist Arthur Laffer, father of curve-on-a-napkin tax policy, is advising the state on a new tax structure. The news is not so much that Laffer is getting $75,000 of taxpayer money, but that Governor Samuel Brownback wants advice only from business leaders; no wage earners allowed behind these officially closed doors.

In Albany, state tax authorities issued a statement asserting they already were pursuing the real estate tax cheats I wrote about last week. Never mind the statistics and lack of public enforcement actions. Maintaining this facade will be more difficult going forward as 300 newly pink-slipped auditors turn a drip of leaks into a stream.

Will Governor Andrew Cuomo, who wants to be president and has declared his eternal allegiance to lowering taxes on the richest New Yorkers, keep looking the other way? Will Lieutenant Governor Bob Duffy, who wants to be governor, mimic the boss? How long will only the little people of New York feel the full force of tax law enforcement under these two Democrats?

That question is a bit more pointed for Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general.

Assemblyman William Colton, an eight termer from Brooklyn, sent fellow Democrat Schneiderman a letter, and a copy of my column, asking for action. Will Schneiderman insist he can only act with Cuomo's cooperation, as his office hinted last week? Or will Schneiderman add a sharp edge to his carefully polished image as a tough law enforcer?

In Washington the mantra that spending, not revenue, is the problem was repeated endlessly last week. The idea that cutting tax rates, especially at the top, will pave a path to renewed prosperity is promoted by just about everyone in national politics except President Barack Obama and the few Capitol Hill Democrats who do not fear liberal as a political epithet.

Fact is, falling revenue is a problem. In fiscal 2011, which ended on Sept. 30, federal income tax revenues were smaller than in 2001, a recession year when the George W. Bush tax cuts began.

In fiscal 2001 the individual income tax brought in $994.3 billion and in just-ended fiscal 2011 it brought in an estimated $956 billion. That's 4 percent less money before taking into account 10 years of inflation.

Per capita the federal income tax brought in 31.5 percent less in real terms in 2011 than in 2001.

LESS IS MORE

The dominant political response to the fall in tax revenues? More tax cuts.

Bipartisan support is building for reducing corporate tax rates by at least 10 percentage points, from 35 percent to 25 percent or less. So is support for allowing repatriation of profits for companies that shifted them overseas to reduce taxes. The last time Congress did that, in 2004, it was sold with a promise it would create 660,000 jobs. Instead the benefiting companies fired more than 100,000 workers, several studies have shown.

There is also a bipartisan plan to further reduce already enfeebled tax law enforcement. The Senate plans to cut the IRS budget by $450 million, the House of Representatives by $600 million, meaning firing thousands of auditors.

Fewer auditors will not benefit the vast majority, whose taxes are taken out of their paychecks before they get their money. But it will give aid and comfort to high-end tax cheats, who rely on complexity, secret offshore accounts and lack of political will to chase them.

If cutting the government revenue department makes sense, then why not go whole hog and get rid of the IRS? That is what Herman Cain, a top rival for the Republican nomination, promises if voters send him to the Oval Office.

Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would scrap the current tax code and replace it with 9 percent levies on corporate profits, on income and on spending. The already rich would only be taxed on their spending since capital income would be tax-free, part of the little known flat tax premise that labor should be taxed, but taxing returns to capital discourages saving.

Under Cain's plan, employers could not deduct the cost of wages paid to workers, not exactly a job creation scheme. Edward Kleinbard, the former chief of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, said the Cain plan is effectively a 27 percent payroll tax.

Cain's plan also imposes a one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth, which may surprise his wealthy friends. He also would double-tax interest income, though, as Kleinbard noted, that must be a mistake.

Under Cain's plan workers would have far less to spend after taxes. Cain insists that critics don't understand. But as the chart illustrates, rich investors would pay less, helping their wealth snowball. The Cain campaign did not return calls seeking more information.

Give Cain credit though. Unlike Governor Brownback he is operating in the open. Unlike Cuomo, Duffy and Schneiderman, he is out front.

Unlike Orwell's Winston Smith, no one from the Ministry of Love will turn you in for beatings until you accept that 2+2=5. The oligarchs and their elected enablers are just trying to convince you that tax deals made in secret are democratic, lower tax rates mean more tax revenue and that the ministries of tax are doing all they can to find the cheats.

In U.S., peace just isn't taken seriously

Yeah, it's just a damn shame that talking about peace these days -- at least in Washington and the major media -- is regarded as pitiful naivete.

And not just peace, but our ignoring all the weapons that we sell to war-torn countries -- America is the world's largest arms exporter by a wide margin.

Real conservatives ought to be appalled, as Ron Paul is appalled, at America's empire of hundreds of military bases around the globe. As Engelhardt points out (again):

"This wasn't always the case. The early Republic that the most hawkish conservatives love to cite was a land whose leaders looked with suspicion on the very idea of a standing army. They would have viewed our hundreds of global garrisons, our vast network of spies, agents, Special Forces teams, surveillance operatives, interrogators, rent-a-guns, and mercenary corporations -- as well as our staggering Pentagon budget and the constant future-war gaming and planning that accompanies it -- with genuine horror."

America's Tragic Descent into Empire

July 7, 2010 | AlterNet

The following is an excerpt from The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's by Tom Engelhardt (Haymarket, 2010).

URL: http://www.alternet.org/world/147428/america's_tragic_descent_into_empire/?page=entire