Of course, if Bush does achieve three or four of these goals, the Democrats will be in serious trouble, as they will have nothing important left to do except screw things up if they ever get power again. And of course, we can expect them to resist these sorts of badly needed reforms with tooth and nail, because they care more about their personal power base than they do about fixing the nation's problems.
The goals are also of different levels of importance. Bush can't pass on #5. He's already committed to it and not following it through would be disastrous. As for the others, he can pretty much pick and choose. Social Security reform is already running into problems, so vitally important though it is he might have to back-burner it. Tax reform scares people, so it will be a challenge. The easy route is to do Immigration and Medicaid reform which are feelgood measures which some Democrats will support, and then use the political capital that builds to tackle one of the tougher issues.
Bush will have to be very careful not to get distracted by partisan issues of lesser importance or to pay too much attention to criticism or polls. He seems to have an instinct for what is right and he needs to follow that instinct first. Everyone in Congress is going to come yammering at him with their pet issue, and he needs to stand firm and tell them to back off, or else make deals which will get the important bills passed before he'll consider their lesser issues.
Bush needs to remember that he can't be voted out of office, so he can afford to take some risks and step on some toes that badly need it. Each of these goals is enormously important for the nation, and if he can achieve even a couple of them he will have done more good for the country than any president in the last 40 years. In fact, even attempting them seriously and failing will leave him with a better legacy than most of his predecessors. In this he should take a note from the firm hand of Teddy Roosevelt who said:
- "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
Even if this mission is hopeless and he fails, he'll still win a legacy of respect if he at least goes down trying to do the right thing. It's do or die time now for Bush. He can either take these vitally important issues which he has already identified and pursue them with everything he's got, or he can accept a legacy of mediocrity at best. So far his ideas have outstripped his performance. In the next three years it's time for his performance to make those ideals a reality.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Richard
Pie in the Sky. His legacy is death and destruction.
2 - MDE
Dave - Congrats on your marvelously Machiavellian post. Your ideas have reached new heights of bloodthirsty obscenity. Three cheers for war everlasting - or for universal democracy, whichever comes first.
Mark
3 - Dave Nalle
Uh, thanks I guess. I just wanted to layout what he has to do to go down as a success - not a great president - but maybe someone on a scale with Polk or Truman.
I've been working on a revision of the article with some additional refinements, so reread it tomorrow. You'll probably hate it more, but it will at least be somewhat different.
Oh, and as to the bloodthirstiness? I don't see it anywhere in the article. We're already committed to an interventionist foreign policy. I'd have been against it on principle before he started, but now that he's taken that course he needs to follow it through if he wants a positive legacy.
Dave
4 - Bennett Dawson
It's a provoking post Dave, thought and otherwise. My personal take:
Goal #1 I kinda like this one. Canada's system really blows goats, and your proposal is meritworthy.
Goal #2 I'm still not convinced, and I'm 47 so I figure that any change to privatization will probably screw my SS.
Goal #3 Yes. Ditto. Yowza.
Goal #4 This is a tough one. But I understand what you're saying.
"If we're already on the road to hell, we might as well make it a four lane highway."
Nah, I'm just kidding. How's
"Since Bush is going to be hated by gazillions of folks anyway, we might as well have him finish this dirty job."
No that's not right. Anyway, I'll try to come up with something, and will read the revised post tomorrow.
Good writing in any case.
Bennett
5 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Bennett, that last one is awfully close. The TR quote really says it all. With the course Bush has taken if he follows it through some will hate him and some will love him for it - if he wimps out everyone will just despise and pity him.
As for #2, I'm about your age, and I'm not expecting much from SS either way. You can't live on what it pays under the current system, so I figure even 15 years of paying into a more functional system would put me better off. I know if I invested the equivalent amount in mutual funds I already have I'd have more monthly income in 15 years than I'll have from a lifetime of paying into SS by that time.
Dave
6 - Bennett Dawson
"so I figure even 15 years of paying into a more functional system would put me better off.
Agreed, 401k all the way. I never really thought about SS until I started getting yearly notices telling me that I had paid enough in to qualify for benifits. Oh, $1100 a month? Really? Be still my heart.
About Bush. I am usually wrong about these things, and the guy I hate ends up being a hero. Or the guy I like ends up shaming himself in office. So if he can muster the sack to really change the world into a better place, as I suppose Lincoln did in the end (still not sure we wouldn't have done just ducky with a NUSA and a SUSA however), then he should go to it and not worry about what Bennett thinks of him.
7 - Dave Nalle
Ok, revisions have been made. Nothing too dramatic, but I realized I had made a very important omission - especially considering the date.
Dave
8 - Scott
Has Bush even made mention of healthcare for all Americans? I don't think that's even on his radar...
The social security reform won't happen unless there's first talk of long-term solvency issues and then maybe privitization. Democrats are uniformly opposed to the privitization aspect as are more and more Republicans who want to try a bi-partisan approach to actually make the system function for the long term. The white house did themselves in when they admitted Bush's plan would not save social security despite Bush's best efforts to sell it as that.
All I've heard about the tax reform issue does not involve eliminating income tax or the IRS but simply shortening the tax code from it's current 46,000 pages (or somewhere in that area) by eliminating loopholes and clauses that we average Americans probably don't know anything about.
Immigration reform - i dont know...let me get back to you on that.
Winning the war on terror. Well, easier said than done, eh? Does the public see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror? I don't think so. There's pretty much no way Americans will support another war unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they really really really pose an imminent threat. We probably do need to intervene in some way in Darfur/Sudan but attack Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Those are our buddies. I don't see it happening. The major coup for Bush would simply be capturing Bin Laden, dont you think? I think that would mark a major victory in the war on terror. And maybe we're getting closer to him now...
"Operations in Sudan shouldn't take more than a few months"
that sounds awfully familiar for some reason...
9 - Dave Nalle
>>Has Bush even made mention of healthcare for all Americans? I don't think that's even on his radar...<<
A Medicaid reform proposal was floated in 2003, but wasn't pursued. I don't expect Bush to tackle universal healthcare, but I think he ought to consider Medicaid reform and measures to adjust the gap between Medicaid and paid insurance. It's a real opportunity for him, but maybe wishful thinking on my part.
>>The social security reform won't happen unless there's first talk of long-term solvency issues and then maybe privitization. Democrats are uniformly opposed to the privitization aspect as are more and more Republicans who want to try a bi-partisan approach to actually make the system function for the long term. The white house did themselves in when they admitted Bush's plan would not save social security despite Bush's best efforts to sell it as that.<<
All true, which is why I now lean towards abandonning this issue alltogether. If he can't get a real solution with full privatization he's better off leaving the Democrats to take the blame for the disaster they made and yet refuse to even acknowledge exists.
>>All I've heard about the tax reform issue does not involve eliminating income tax or the IRS but simply shortening the tax code from it's current 46,000 pages (or somewhere in that area) by eliminating loopholes and clauses that we average Americans probably don't know anything about.<<
That's the most modest proposal. Bush has publicly toyed with the idea of a flat tax or a national sales tax. This is a perfect example of where he's liable to doom himself. If he settles for just cleaning up the code that's such a tiny step forward that it's nice, but not noteworthy. Not what you want to hang your legacy on.
>>Immigration reform - i dont know...let me get back to you on that.<<
IMO this is his strongest issue if he can actually put together and implement a working plan.
>>Winning the war on terror. Well, easier said than done, eh? Does the public see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror? I don't think so.<<
Like I said, he has to go forward without thinking about polls or whatever foolishness the public has gotten into its head.
>>There's pretty much no way Americans will support another war unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they really really really pose an imminent threat. <<
None of the other situations I mentioned would necessarily be wars. Humanitarian military intervention can cover a lot of types of operations.
>>We probably do need to intervene in some way in Darfur/Sudan but attack Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Those are our buddies. I don't see it happening. <<
I didn't say to attack them, just that they needed to be looked at. They need to be pressured and guided in the right direction.
>>The major coup for Bush would simply be capturing Bin Laden, dont you think? I think that would mark a major victory in the war on terror. And maybe we're getting closer to him now...<<
That would be a cheap way out. Bin Laden is certainly the prime target, but the way Al Quaeda is organized now capturing him is more symbolic than substantive. And if Bush wants a legacy it needs to be based on real progress, not just symbolism.
>>"Operations in Sudan shouldn't take more than a few months"
that sounds awfully familiar for some reason...<<
We're talking Sudan here, not Iraq and not even Afghanistan. If we can't subdue a few Sudanese warlords in a couple of months we shouldn't bother to go in there. It's Europe's responsibility anyway if they had the balls to do anything about it.
Dave
10 - Steve S
Goal 1: Health Coverage for All Americans - This is the easiest of the four issues, because our system basically works.
Holy Toledo Batman, where exactly is this system working? The for-profit aspect has to be removed. Doctors and clinics are putting people through treatments unnecessarily for the money. Insurance companies put caps on the amount they will give out quarterly/yearly, etc. For everybody I know, myself included, it's been a pain in the ass compared to the time before there were HMO's and PPO's, etc.
I have no problem with keeping health care in the private sector, and would like to see universal health coverage be a given in this nation, but it won't work right until the for-profit aspect is removed.
11 - Mark
Going after social security reform first was a huge error in judgement, but I understand that if anything, Bush's "bold" move has inspired others in Congress to buck the trend and suggest even more sweeping changes (NOTE: usually termed "radical" by those who want to alienate the American public, just as the Demos are using the word "privatization" to describe voluntary choice). Tax reform should have been first on the agenda because it would solve all three critical issues - social security, medicare, and tax fairness - at the same time. Despite what you say about the FairTax, the marketplace will adjust to its implementation and force quick changes at the state level or risk a mass exodus of business interests and people. It's easy to be a naysayer; it's harder to offer up an alternative. You've done a disservice to your readers by doing just that. Plain and simple, the FairTax is the only viable solution as it has been analyzed to death and is now supported by a majority of reputable people who know about these things. Yes, it will be different and yes, there will be resistance, but the brave will see it through and a better, more competitive, and fairer America will result. It's time to get on with it vs. Congress fiddling and tweaking everything to advance their own shallow self-interests. The FairTax should be adopted as is and soon.
12 - Dave Nalle
>>Holy Toledo Batman, where exactly is this system working?<<
I know it doesn't seem that way to us here in America, Steve, but it really is working. It's so much better than the alternatives that we should be dancing in the streets, but from the inside all we can see are the shortcomings.
>> The for-profit aspect has to be removed. Doctors and clinics are putting people through treatments unnecessarily for the money. Insurance companies put caps on the amount they will give out quarterly/yearly, etc. For everybody I know, myself included, it's been a pain in the ass compared to the time before there were HMO's and PPO's, etc.<<
Even with all that, it's getting us treatment an average of 6 months faster than any other system in the world, and cutting out death rates from most causes by 50% or more compared to the rest of the world. And even MORE amazing, if you run the numbers our painfully high insurance premiums are substantially lower than the portion of the average salary which people in most developed nations pay for their healthcare. They pay the equivalent in taxes of $700 per month in insurance premiums.
>>I have no problem with keeping health care in the private sector, and would like to see universal health coverage be a given in this nation, but it won't work right until the for-profit aspect is removed.<<
You can't have a private system without some element of profit built into it. It certainly needs to be regulated better and something needs to be done about the gaps, but it's still a better system for those currently covered than any observable alternative.
Dave
13 - Dave Nalle
>>Going after social security reform first was a huge error in judgement, <<
Very true. He had less 'political capital' than he thought he did and should have waited until he'd achieved something bigger domestically before going after SS.
>>but I understand that if anything, Bush's "bold" move has inspired others in Congress to buck the trend and suggest even more sweeping changes (NOTE: usually termed "radical" by those who want to alienate the American public, just as the Demos are using the word "privatization" to describe voluntary choice). Tax reform should have been first on the agenda because it would solve all three critical issues - social security, medicare, and tax fairness - at the same time. Despite what you say about the FairTax, the marketplace will adjust to its implementation and force quick changes at the state level or risk a mass exodus of business interests and people. It's easy to be a naysayer; it's harder to offer up an alternative. You've done a disservice to your readers by doing just that. Plain and simple, the FairTax is the only viable solution as it has been analyzed to death and is now supported by a majority of reputable people who know about these things. Yes, it will be different and yes, there will be resistance, but the brave will see it through and a better, more competitive, and fairer America will result. It's time to get on with it vs. Congress fiddling and tweaking everything to advance their own shallow self-interests. The FairTax should be adopted as is and soon.<<
I agree that the general concept of the FairTax is a good alternative, I just disagree with the specific method of implementation. The rate is too high, and the system of more or less arbitrary rebates based on estimated incomes is a potential nightmare. It would be so much simpler to just exempt certain classes of goods from the tax and leave it at that.
Dave
14 - Merrill Bender
This comment on the FairTax is way off and shows you have not read the whole package. You make the same old mistake as many others to busy to understand the package. You assume it is an add on sales tax to current pricing and that is absolutely wrong. You wrote;
"or a 'fair tax' type system of federal sales tax. The system proposed by the actual 'fair tax' advocates is not a viable option as the tax rate is too high and their system of rebating hypothetical expenses for necessities is completely impractical"
Several well known economists have calculated the effects of the Fair Tax on Consumer prices and the business supply chain. The consensus is that retail prices under the Fair Tax will first drop 20 to 30 % before you add on the National Sales tax portion of the Fair Tax. Consumers will pay close to what they pay now but take home 100% of their paychecks with no payroll tax or income tax deductions.
The Rebate system is a standard number based on family size not a rebate of actuall purchases that has to be applied for. Just as the Social Security administration sends out millions of checks each month based on a Social Security number so will the "Prebate system" under the Fair Tax.
Every family of 4 will receive a monthly check based on the poverty level of spending. That is a standard check of $479/Month; an individual would receive $178/m.
The Fair Tax assumes 100% expenditure of food and necessities up to the poverty line and rebates the national sales tax on that portion. Therefor no one pays sales tax on the necessities up to the poverty line.
Go to www.fairtax.org and read the FAQ section for more info.
Or visit my blog at
http://fairtaxreform.blogspot.com/
15 - Dave Nalle
All the info I have on the FairTax comes from the FAQ page you refer to in your post. I don't see anywhere on there an indication that it's not a sales-type tax, and you don't explain that either. If it's not a consumption tax, what is it?
And yes, I do understand the rebate system - that's one of my main objections, since it's based on the questionable BHS poverty figures not actual family expenses. Some families have to spend more on basic expenses for various reasons, from living far from work to ongoing medical costs to dietary requirements. None of that gets factored in. A simple market-based solution would be much better. Just exempt food, medicine, housing and other necessities from the tax. It would reduce the bureaucracy and get rid of the crazy and somewhat socialistic idea of paying rebates in advance based on an arbitrary and innacurate number.
>>The consensus is that retail prices under the Fair Tax will first drop 20 to 30 % before you add on the National Sales tax portion of the Fair Tax. <<
That's so totally speculative as to be without any meaning. When have businesses ever responded to a drop in corporate taxes by lowering prices instantly? It just doesn't happen that way.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the FairTax a lot - but some of the implementation is very poorly thought out.
Dave
16 - Georgio
Dave..even though I don't agree with all of your ideas I give you a hell of lot of credit for putting your ideas out there..one thing you have convinced me on and I was strongly for it is socialized medicine..your examples of other countries is the main reason..I don't agree with the way Bush is fighting terrorists but I like your plan for going into the Sudan ..this is way overdue..I wish you would write an article on how to improve the United Nations..it is a disaster but I still think it is important to the world but not the way it is..Now that you have given your age could you also tell me what you do for a living...you are an extremely informed person and I respect you for that..wish you where on our side..
17 - Temple Stark
It's forged. Forged. Foooorged. Sniff. Who wrote that comment? That's pretty low. Sniff. Sniff.
:-0
(inside joke)
18 - Dave Nalle
LOL, Temple makes actual humor that's funny. I am in pain, pain I tell you.
Georgio:
Thanks for the kind words.
It's nice to see someone paid attention to my socialized medicine article. I was surprised to find the statistics I did. I had known that wait times for treatment were longer in Europe, but I had not realized before writing that how badly underfunded hospitals were or what the implications of delays in treatment were for the fatality of many diseases. Really eye opening.
I'm reading up on the Sudan/Darfur situation for a short article sometime soon. The situation isn't changing in any meaningful way and isn't likely to unless we take it on. The good and bad thing about Bush's foreign policy is the unilateralism of it. It puts us at risk physically, financially and politically and makes us the target of massive criticism, but once we've committed to it we are in a sense liberated from conventional restrictions and limitations. At this point if we act unilaterally in Darfur we have nothing to lose - already being universally reviled - and much to gain. With our troops already deployed in Iraq, if we can pull any significant number out then Darfur is like a free prize in a sense because already being deployed in the region lowers the cost, and it's so much less ambitious than Iraq or even Afghanistan that we can look good and do good for the people there with relative ease.
I have no idea how to improve the UN. John Bolton isn't going to do it, but until someone thinks of a good plan, putting him in there is a great way to annoy the UN, which I think has real value. The UN is corrupt, lazy and complacent and I think the Bolton appointment would at least put them on notice that we're not pleased with them. The problem with the UN is that it's become too institutionalized. It assumes it's got a right to funding and support and its bureaucrats increasingly think of the UN as their primary allegiance rather than thinking of the UN as a representative institution which should look out for the interests of the member countries, not the UN itself. Fixing it is beyond me. As a world government it was poorly designed, and as an independent do-gooder organization it has too much pseudo-governmental structure. I'd probably scrap it and start over, but the problem is that I don't think that in the current environment you could get everyone to agree to a new UN type body which worked any better. I think there's a reason why every attempt at a world peacekeeping or government organization has failed.
Shark and Temp keep ragging on me for supposedly thinking I'm an expert in every field, but I'm not one. I am a bang-up trivial pursuit player, though. If you read a book every couple of days for 35 years you do pick up some information on a whole bunch of subjects - at least enough to form an opinion and get a starting point for research.
When I don't know something but it interests me I read up on it.
The only things I'm really an expert on are selected aspects of history and literature, because that's where my zillion years in academia were focused, so the next time we see a posting on BC about the use of popular ballads for propaganda during the 100 Years War or misappropriation of wall-building funds in 13th century Yarmouth you'll see me chime in with true expertise, since I can safely say that I'm the world's leading expert in those two areas.
Up until a couple of years ago I taught college history for a living, but I got tired of the bureaucratic hassles and departmental politics, so I decided to take a hobby and turn it into a business, becoming a full time font designer and eventually it started to do well enough that I now have my own little company with a couple of employees and 460+ fonts available for sale.
And maybe I am on your side, Georgio - if not on every issue, in more ways than you might think.
Dave
19 - Georgio
Dave ..thanks for answering everything..I appreciate it..
20 - Steve S
Here's an article that might be relevant to Bush's legacy. Unfortunately the MSM didn't cover it because nobody named Jennifer was involved.
The London Times reports:
"[T]he British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."
"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."
--
You can click on the link to read Congress's letter to the President for more information, as well as a complete list of the 88 Congressional members who are jumping on board with this inquiry.
---
We now return you back to your regularly scheduled Crazy Jennifers programming.
21 - Steve S
The link has a quote mark at the end of it, making it not work.
This should work.
22 - Dave Nalle
I'm not one bit surprised by that, Steve. I would have guessed that was the case even without evidence. I'm equally sure the Bush administration at least started running scenarios on attacking Iraq before 9/11. I know that the DOD and the CIA are doing this sort of thing all the time on hypothetical crisis points, but I'm sure the administration had a more than academic interest from day one.
I realize that the thought that we cynically planned to invade Iraq and were looking for reasons to do it probably horrifies some people, and they're outraged that the whole WMD thing was basically a convenient excuse for what the administration already wanted to do. I'm still convinced the administration genuinely believed the WMDs were there - the dishonesty is that they really didn't care whether they were or not because WMDs weren't their main motivation.
That said, while all of this is horrific to some of you, it doesn't bother me much at all. What deception there was in all of this was relatively trivial and sort of irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, and while I'm not one to excuse any and all misbehavior from the administration, a bit of deception in a just cause is why we have politicians as leaders rather than saints.
Dave
23 - gonzo marx
well..it horrifies me..and does show something of how the Shrub's Legacy may dwell in the annals of history..
remember the last president was impeached for a personal piccadillo, and then being deceptive about it?...this one has shown to be deceptive about a fucking WAR for Bog's sake...one that is costing us over 280 billion dollars and more than 1580 lives lost...that's not even counting limbs missing and other injuries..
scale and perspective are two of the Lenses with which History views event, eh?
some other bits of the Shrub's Legacy..
bankruptcy law changes
cuts in Medicaid for the poor
going from budget surplus to record deficits
changes in class action suit procedures and laws
signing a Law for a single individual(remember Teri's one time only Law? from not so long ago...nope, no "big government" stuff here)
as well as one of my favorites.."nukyular"
"but Mr. President, it's pronounced nuclear"
"ah know that Stretch, but that's how ah say it"
what does it say about the innate Character of a Man when he has been shown he is wrong about something, knows it and acknowledges it...but still does it anyway?
/end twaddle
Excelsior!
24 - Dave Nalle
>>remember the last president was impeached for a personal piccadillo, and then being deceptive about it?<<
Yes, and that was a silly waste of time and look at the results - zip.
>>...this one has shown to be deceptive about a fucking WAR for Bog's sake...one that is costing us over 280 billion dollars and more than 1580 lives lost...that's not even counting limbs missing and other injuries..<<
Deceptive, but not necessarily in a negative way. Deceptive like FDR was in getting us into WW2. And not necessarily lying, just picking what arguments to make so that his position would look stronger. That's the kind of deception you see in advertising and politics all the time. It's to be expected.
>>some other bits of the Shrub's Legacy..
bankruptcy law changes<<
Not something he initiated, but he did sign off on them.
>>cuts in Medicaid for the poor<<
Which came about because he was blocked from actually reforming the system.
>>going from budget surplus to record deficits<<
Unavoidable given the circumstances and the profligate greed of congress.
>>changes in class action suit procedures and laws<<
I'm fuzzy on these, but weren't they changes for the better?
>>signing a Law for a single individual(remember Teri's one time only Law? from not so long ago...nope, no "big government" stuff here)<<
One of the things I have a gripe with about Bush is his apparent willingness to sing absolutely anything Congress sends him. He'd sign his own death warrant if it appeared on his desk.
All of thee things you mention are irritating, but they're not the kind of great achievements or failures a presidency is judged on. They're trivia when you come right down to it.
>>as well as one of my favorites.."nukyular"
"but Mr. President, it's pronounced nuclear"
"ah know that Stretch, but that's how ah say it"<<
All the bidnessmen down here in Texas say it that way y'all.
>>what does it say about the innate Character of a Man when he has been shown he is wrong about something, knows it and acknowledges it...but still does it anyway?<<
It shows that how he pronounces nuclear isn't a major priority with him, nor should it be.
Dave
25 - Steve S
Yes, and that was a silly waste of time and look at the results - zip.
Personally, I think it did yield the Republicans results. I think it gave them a lot of Democrats and liberals today who no longer want to work with or listen to Republicans.
I don't think it gave them the results they wanted, but it did give them results.