As President Bush's administration begins winding down to a much-anticipated close, we're starting to see some attempts at legacy burnishing. This is where presidents on the downslope of their time in office propose a series of ambitious or laudable initiatives that they hope will get them remembered as visionaries and big thinkers.
When a president is as weakened as Bush is, the burnishing takes the form of proposals that he never felt merited serious effort or political capital earlier in his administration, and that will not even be seriously considered until the next administration is in office. It's risk-free, pain-free posturing for the history books.
Thus we are treated to the following:
GLOBAL WARMING
Trying to get out in front of the global warming debate, Bush has proposed ambitious global talks to get the world's biggest polluters to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions (full text of his speech is here).
Sounds great. Except that the timeline is for the long-term reduction goal merely to be defined by the end of 2008 — shortly before Bush exits the White House. The proposal has other weaknesses, but that's the biggie: there will be no pain incurred during Bush's watch, and implementation and enforcement will be the responsibility of his successor.
This is somehow supposed to overcome Bush's record on global warming, including the United States' continued rejection of European proposals to actually take action now and impose mandatory emission caps, his ignorance and dismissal of his own EPA's science, moving to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions only after losing a Supreme Court case (and once again, the regulation won't actually begin until the next administration), cutting back on efforts to monitor global warming, and so on.
AIDS PREVENTION
Next Bush has proposed doubling his program to combat AIDS, from $15 billion over five years to $30 billion. The original $15 billion, you may recall, partly involved shifting around money that had already been budgeted (cutting child-health programs, among other things) as well as a questionable focus on abstinence-only programs and efforts to undermine condom distributions. It was also slow to get going, with most of the spending budgeted (does this sound familiar?) for after the end of Bush's first term. But there was significant new money involved, and the plan did focus attention on the AIDS pandemic.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
I have to point out that the budget balancing program isn't just lame-duck window dressing. That program has been in place since his first term, and despite the potential pitfalls you point out, it has actually exceeded projections and is ahead of schedule, mainly because the economic stimulus package worked so well.
Dave
2 - Dr Dreadful
Bush's budget balancing plan sells under the brand name of I Can't Believe It's Not Fiscal Conservatism.
3 - Dennis Rohel
George Bush will be remembered for his upcoming trials in the World Court for crimes against humanity.
George Bush's strategy is to continue to kill Iraqi people, and take the oil as long as he can hold on! George Bush attacked Iraq for the Oil. There was no bomb and there were no Iraqi in 911. Americans have almost no oil left domestically (less than 33% of consumption). The dollar is hitting all time lows and what choice does George Bush have but to kill for oil?
I am a Canadian living next to the American Third Reich, and most Canadians support George Bush being tried in the World Court for Crimes Against Humanity for his actions in Iraq.
Dennis Rohel
Canada
4 - Dave Nalle
Dennis, no matter how awful Bush may be, the point at which he goes on trial in a world court is the point at which the US opts out of the world court and the UN and perhaps invades countries full of dimwitted traitors like - wait let me think - Canada.
Dave
5 - Sean Aqui
Dave: It has exceeded (low) expectations largely because of the AMT, gimmicks like the one-time amnesty on "repatriated" earnings from overseas and ignoring the cost of "emergency" defense expenditures.
And the government is still stealing from Social Security to hide the true size of the deficit.
It's an open question as to how much credit Bush deserves for the growing economy (or the recession that may be around the corner). I'm inclined toward the view that $2 trillion in debt-fueled stimulus ought to have had some effect. The real question is not only "how much", but whether the stimulus was worth the debt incurred. And even that produced a recovery that was as shallow as the recession that preceded it, particularly in the areas of jobs and wages. Arguably the tax cuts weren't well targeted, and the huge deficits and growing debt weighed things down.
In any event, one big thing makes the balanced budget a lame-duck fantasy: the necessary fiscal discipline will be the job of his successor. The only way his plan works is if future presidents do what he himself didn't.
6 - Dave Nalle
Dave: It has exceeded (low) expectations largely because of the AMT, gimmicks like the one-time amnesty on "repatriated" earnings from overseas and ignoring the cost of "emergency" defense expenditures.
That last is just not ture the 'emergency' expenditures are NOT 'off-budget' as many claim. They do in fact show up on the budget, just in the following year. Read the budget sometime. you'll see all the emergency appropriations from the year before clearly deliniated.
In any event, one big thing makes the balanced budget a lame-duck fantasy: the necessary fiscal discipline will be the job of his successor. The only way his plan works is if future presidents do what he himself didn't.
I hate to have to keep defending Bush, but he HAS cut the budget substantially. If you take war spending out of the picture then Bush has been one of the most thrifty presidents of recent years.
Dave
7 - Lee Richards
"Bush has been one of the most spendthrift presidents of recent years"
How absolutely and terribly true!
8 - Nancy
#3 - from your lips to God's ears; would that it would be true, but it won't, the GOP & their owners, the megacorporations, will see to that. Even if every citizens of the US took to the streets demanding impeachment & indictment, it won't happen - thanks to the lickspittle maggotslimes in congress, who would never support such a move. After all, in some future regime, it could very well be THEM.
9 - Dave Nalle
Spendthrift, thrifty, whatever. The fact remains that if you take military spending out of the budget Bush has undespent Clinton, his father and dear old Ronnie.
And Nancy, to impeach someone there need to be 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. The lack of those, not the weakness of Congress, is the main stumbling block to your divisive fantasy.
Dave
10 - Dr Dreadful
I don't know if you could ever prove this one way or the other, but wouldn't Bush's low spending on non-military programs be because he is throwing so much money at this frickin' war?
11 - Nancy
Dubya is robbing the citizens of the US not only of funding for social programs, but every other kind of program, in order to throw money at his phony war. It's an outrage & a crime that he is willing to bestow billions of free money on Iraqis to "rebuild" Iraq (after he destroyed it), while telling the taxpaying US citizens of New Orleans they will have to repay whatever funds they get from the US.
Dave - he HAS committed high crimes & misdemeanors; the accusations just haven't formally been made yet by any parties with enough political power/authority to bring him to court. But the evidence is there, & in spades, & should enough congressmaggots ever grow spinal cords, or enough world leaders stop quibbling over BS, & the outcry become loud enough, it will indeed become evident there's a plethora of material to impeach, convice - & and hang - both Dubya & Cheney, either in a US or a world court.
12 - Lee Richards
"IF you take military spending out of the budget..."
And IF pigs had wings...
Slice and dice the unpleasant facts and "prove" anything you want, even that Bush is really a fiscal conservative whose stewardship is a model of thrift and efficiency.
13 - Deano
most Canadians support George Bush being tried in the World Court for Crimes Against Humanity for his actions in Iraq
Dennis, while a majority of Canadians don't like Bush or the direction he has taken the US foreign policy, I haven't seen anything indicating that most Canadians would like to see him on trial...If you have an actual link, feel free to add it in.
invades countries full of dimwitted traitors like - wait let me think - Canada.
Dave, it might have escaped your notice but Canadians are not obligated to kowtow to GWB or the US constitution. They may be dimwitted at times but they are not traitors.
Silly hyperbole on both your parts...
14 - Emry
{If you pretend to be one of our writers once more, you will be banned immediately. This is your only warning. The Comments Editor]
15 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, you're a nice person, but you're listening to idiotic propaganda from the extreme left. There's not going to be an impeachment or a trial in a world court. There's no justification for it. Just pissing off a bunch of leftists doesn't actually create grounds for such action.
And yes, Deano, I did answer hyperbole with hyperbole.
Dave
16 - Nancy
Dave, you're a nice person, but you confuse me with those idiots who believe whatever they heard in the last soundbite on MTV. I base my opinions on Dubya's OWN reported words & deeds, & nothing else. I DON'T & never have taken anybody else's opinion as reason to think anything. I was lucky enough to be taught to think for myself, & to be critical of what BS various self-appointed authorities - including whatever current maggot occupies the WH, whether D or R - try to shovel me masquerading as 'fact' when in fact it's just propaganda. Please don't accuse me of blindly following some stupid party line again.
17 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, I didn't accuse you of following one of the parties, I accused you of being swayed by propaganda. What else can I conclude when you hold beliefs which are so contrary to reality. You may not believe the BS the authorities are handing down, but you're clearly believing some sort of BS, even if it's generated in your own head. In specific regarding the possibilities of Bush being impeached or appearing in a world court of some sort. If you think that's actually likely to happen I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that conclusion.
Dave
18 - alessandro Nicolo
Third Reich - please. The famed (albeit misguided and hopelessly inaccurate) analogy of the anti-Bush crowd: Nazi Germany.
Dennis, I'm Canadian and you most certainly do not speak for me. And yes, I would like to see this link proving most of us want to see him in an international court. If so, then we are a nation of idiots and not critical thinkers.
Canada, Dennis, in case you have not noticed is not a country that can stand on its own two feet - militarily or economically. How about the dictatorship under Chretien and Liberals? Does that count as third Reich for you? After all, his party swindled the nation into believing they gave us real governship.
Check out the mess in our own backyard for once (has anyone noticed our education system is sinking, increasing taxes and the second-rate health system?) instead of always pointing out the blemishes of the United States. Heaven forbid we Canadians don't open up real debates about the state of our country. Of course not, we're so busy blasting the Americans we fail to confront our own shortcomings.
Fricken nation of la-la dreamers who freak out when NBC cuts away from a hockey game. Nice for us to pretend and think the world is an idealist oasis while countries like the USA have to face real threats and real problems - and no they did not necessarily create them as so many believe.
At least Harper is bringing back some professional leadership back into this land.
19 - Nancy
Dave, you don't read what I write. At no time have I ever said I believed it would happen. Au contraire, I have repeatedly said I knew it never would happen, because congress lacks the spine & the balls to stand up & do the right thing. As for evidence, there's 6+ years' worth, in black, white, & color, most of it Junior's own words & deeds to damn & convict him with. The one who's living in a state of denial (apparently the aka of the state of Texas) is you, pretending that his behavior is in no way criminal. Yeah, that's how Bush & Rove think: if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Well, it doesn't. Surprise, surprise, surprise - as he'll find out, although not the way he should, at the hands of a court of law.
20 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, if the evidence were there, the Democrats would jump at the opportunity to act on it. The truth is that it's not there, or what there is which can be proven is so trivial that pursuing it would backfire on them.
Dave