Political-Commentary.com

"We Never Make Mistakes"

In the entire history of the Bush Administration, has there been one instance where someone connected with the Administration has admitted making a mistake? To listen to them testify before the 9/11 Commission, one must conclude that this group has an almost god-like ability to always do the right thing.

Going After Al Queda

The Bush Administration says that it wouldn't have done any good to go after Al Queda before September 11 because 9/11 would happened anyway. By this same logic, doesn't this mean that it doesn't make sense to go after Al Queda now, because whatever plans it has in place will be carried out anyway?

This raises the question -- why is Bush going after Al Queda now? If there is a reason to go after it now, wouldn't there have been a similar reason to go after it before 9/11?

Disgruntled Former Bush Employees

Is there a single person who has left the Bush White House who has anything good to say about it? Wait until we get Colin Powell's book! That should be a doozy!

Justice Scalia -- a Brilliant Fellow, But . . .

Justice Scalia has written a lengthy explanation of why it is just fine for him to hear a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney. Basically, he says it is preposterous to argue that his vote will be affected by his trip with Cheney on Air Force Two. But, of course, that is not the point. The point is that he is a friend of Cheney's. The trip with Cheney is important only to the extent that it illustrates the friendship.

Scalia is a brilliant fellow. Unfortunately, he uses his brains to confuse rather than enlighten.

Anti-Bush Is Not Pro-Appeasement

The defeat of the incumbent Spanish regime is, we are told, appeasement of the terrorists. How so? Apparently because the incumbent regime supported Bush in Iraq. If the Iraq war were an anti-terrorist operation, it would seemingly follow that the Spanish voters decided not to continue with anti-terrorist policies.

But, of course, the Iraq war had nothing to do with terrorism, except to the extent that it has brought terrorism to Iraq. One could want Spain out of Iraq, yet solidly support anti-terrorism efforts everywhere else. All the Spain vote shows is that Spanish voters don't want to help fight Bush-created terrorism. The massive demonstrations following the bombings are ample proof that the Spanish people are not giving into terrorists. The Spanish election was a vote against Bush, not a vote for appeasement.

Terror Before the November Election?

We are being told that the Spanish bombings were designed to change the outcome of the Spanish election, and we should be prepared for a similar event before our November election. Huh? 9/11 helped Bush's ratings, and his ads evoking 9/11 are based on the premise that terrorism continues to help him. Assuming this is true (it probably is), wouldn't a terrorist event prior to the November election help Bush? And doesn't that mean that the terrorists would attack only if Kerry was ahead, and they wanted Bush to win?

That raises the question of why the terrorists might want Bush to win. Perhaps because they like his actions (or inaction) in the war against terror? Perhaps because his policies are inflaming the rest of the world? If the terrorists do attack before the November elections, the attack would be proof (or at least highly suggestive) that Bush is following exactly the policies that terrorists wish him to follow. Not exactly a good sign.

The Spain Bombings

Some are saying the terrorists elected the new administriation in Spain. Perhaps so. But if Bush gets re-elected here, won't that also be the terrorists doing? Before the 9/11 attacks, Bush was not very popular. After the attacks, everyone loved him. Now, Bush is running ads reminding people of 9/11 in an attempt to re-establish his post-9/11 popularity. If he succeeds, can't he thank the terrorists for his re-election?

Bush's Ads

If Bush's new ads are any indication, it could be a long campaign for him. Normally, you would expect an incumbent President to run positive ads about the great things he has done. Instead, Bush is running ads with photos of 9/11. It certainly tells you something about Bush's success as President when the best he can do is to remind people that a disaster occurred on his watch.

Proposition 55 -- An Example of What is Wrong with California

One measure on Tuesday's California ballot has received little attention from the press or the commentators. That measure is Proposition 55, which is a $12.3 billion bond measure for educational facilities (roughly, $500 for each man, woman, and child in California). The lack of attention is mysterious, since Proposition 55 typifies why California is in its present fiscal mess. On the one hand, voters like to pass propositions that drastically increase state spending. On the other hand, they continue to elect politicians who refuse to raise taxes to pay for any of these measures. Not surprisingly, we have ended up with a severe imbalance between spending and taxes.

It makes little sense to vote for Prop 57 -- which, we are told, is a way to cover past spending excesses so we can go forward into a new era of fiscal responsibility -- while also voting for Prop 55, which is a "business as usual" measure that only contributes to the state's fiscal problems.

California Election

How should we vote in the California election on Tuesday, March 2, 2004? For me, the easiest vote is on Proposition 56, which would reduce from 2/3 to 55% the vote needed to pass a budget. This proposition would help fix the anomaly that the Legislature needs only a 50% vote to reduce taxes, but a 2/3 vote to increase them. At present, it is a lot easier for the Legislature to reduce taxes in times of prosperity than to increase them in times of fiscal crisis. This probably is part of the reason why we are in such a mess today. "Yes" on 56.

Proposition 55 is a $12,300,000,000 (yes, that is 12.3 billion, not 12.3 million) bond measure for educational facilities. An analysis of this measure ties in well with the analysis above of Proposition 56. The Legislature needs a 2/3 vote to raise taxes to pay for the interest on the Proposition 55 bonds, yet the voters can approve Proposition 55 by a 50% vote. No wonder California has problems! It doesn't help that the voters seem rather clueness, continuing to approve measures like this while expressing outrage that they might have to pay taxes to fund them. Proposition 55 might be a good measure if it required, say, a slight increase in the sales tax to service the debt (or a small income tax surcharge), but it is the wrong measure when it has no funding mechanism.

Next is Proposition 57, which would issue a $15,000,000 bond to pay off the General Fund deficit. First, it may be noted that about 1/3 of that deficit is due to Schwarzenegger's reduction in the car tax. Thus, we would be issuing bonds to cover a tax reduction. That is a crazy way to conduct fiscal policy! We are told that there will be dire financial consequences if the voters do not approve this bond. But such dire consequences are due almost entirely to the Legislature's and the Governor's refusal to even consider a tax increase (which, of course, would require a 2/3 vote). I recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 57 -- we need to hit the Legislature and the governor over the head with a 2 x 4 to bring them to their senses. If Proposition 57 is defeated, and Proposition 56 is enacted, there is at least some chance that the Legislature will do the responsible thing, and increase taxes (just as Republicans Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson did when faced with similar situations).

Finally, there is Proposition 58, the California Balanced Budget Act. If this measure fails, Proposition 57 also will fail (even if it gets a majority vote). I recommend a "no" vote to help assure the defeat of Proposition 57. Anyway, Proposition 57 is a bad idea -- there is no reason for the budget to be in balance very year, and you can be sure that the politicians will come up with creative ways to get around the provisions of this proposition.

Bush and the National Guard

What is the significance of the controversy about Bush and the National Guard? On one level, not much. We know that Bush had some problems in his past (drinking and arrests), and they really aren't relevant to his performance as president. Of course, it can be argued that the real issue is that Bush is now lying about what he did in the past. But if so, this surely is an insignificant lie in comparison to his continuing lies about Iraq, the economy, and everything else.

On another level, however, the controversy is quite significant. It shows that Bush is a fellow who happily agreed to have taxpayers teach him how to fly, and then unilaterally decided that he didn't want to fulfill his flying commitment to the military. In other words, he acted like a spoiled brat who thought he could do whatever he wanted, and damn everyone else. Hmmm, sort of like his performance as President!

Bush's Interview

Did you miss the Bush interview on "Meet the Press"? Here it is in its entirety:

Q: [put any question here]
A: I did what I did because it was the right thing to do. You have a problem with that?

Justice Scalia

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said he doesn't believe anyone could reasonably question his impartiality in the case involving Vice President Cheney. In fact, of course, Scalia's impartiality can be questioned in most cases that come before the Court. Scalia has a far-right agenda, and as a Justice he does what he can to further it.

What Scalia doubtless was thinking, but perhaps didn't express very well, is that his relationship with Cheney will have no effect upon his position in the case. That doubtless is true -- Scalia would take Cheney's side even if he had never met the fellow.

Nevertheless, the entire judicial system is based upon the idea that judges are impartial (which is largely true, unless you are talking about Supreme Court justices). In order to preserve both the appearance and the reality of impartiality, it is important that judges not rule in cases where they are friends with one of the litigants. Whether or not their thinking actually is affected by the friendship is irrelevant.

Scalia is a smart guy -- why doesn't he know that?

Terrorist Attack Prevented?

Tom Ridge says that the cancellation of certain airline flights has prevented another Al Queda attack. So, after all the money spend on airport security, on bulletproof cockpit doors, and on who knows what else, we still are protected only if we cancel the flights the terrorists are targeting? Really comforting.

Getting Out of Iraq

Bush has offered three reasons for the Iraq War: Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.; Saddam had ties to Al Queda; and Iraq deserves democracy.

Bush now wants to get out of Iraq before the November 2004 presidential election. A hasty retreat is consistent with either of the first two reasons for the war, as our business would have been done once we defeated Saddam. But a hasty retreat is inconsistent with the third reason, as democracy will be achieved only if we stay as long as needed.

The first two reasons for the war have been discredited (if they ever made sense), so Bush is forced to rely upon the third reason. Yet that reason is inconsistent with a quick exit. If Bush does make a quick exit, and democracy fails to take hold, he will not have achieved a single goal of the war. But if he stays in Iraq, he may not be re-elected.

Bush is between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Weapons Inspector David Kay

Weapons inspector David Kay says that the CIA owes an apology to George Bush for its intelligence failures. Huh? Certainly, one can imagine a situation where bad intelligence on WMD might have pushed a reluctant President toward war. In such a situation, an apology might be appropriate. However, the actual situation was just the opposite -- Bush was looking for any intelligence that would justify a war, and to a large extent the CIA gave it to him. The CIA doesn't owe Bush an apology for telling him what he wanted to hear, but instead owes the American people an apology for helping Bush to justify this war.

Kerry -- The Not-Dean Candidate

Dean was riding high for a long time as the Anti-Bush candidate. However, the voters decided that Anti-Bush probably couldn't beat Bush. So they looked for a Not-Dean candidate, and found Kerry. Doubtless the voters will soon realize that Not-Dean doesn't have much of a chance against Bush. At that point, watch out for Clark and Edwards.

Karl Rove

We have been told that the Bush Administration is run by Karl Rove, who promotes or opposes policies depending on whether they will help or hurt Bush's chance of re-election. Doubtless this true to some extent. Politicians do not remain in office long unless they note which way the political wind in blowing.

However, the two big policy achievements of the Bush Administration have been the Iraq war, and tax cuts weighted toward the well-off. Neither is a policy that should achieve much political mileage. Rather than going into Iraq, Bush could have focused on terrorism, both on hunting down Al Queda members, and on promoting political systems in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) that would be hostile to terrorism. Rather than enacting tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy, Bush could have aimed the cuts at middle- to low- income voters.

One may quarrel with the decisions that Bush has made, but it does seem a bit unfair to accuse him of making decisions on the basis of politics. If anything, he has retained fairly high popularity despite policies that were not designed to maximize his popularity.

Bush's State of the Union

Several commentators have pointed out that Bush's State of the Union speech emphasized past triumphs (or disasters, depending on one's point of view), rather than future policies. Bush still is attempting to justify his Iraq war, and still is telling us how his tax cuts have turned the economy around. Bush's speech, however, had few proposals for the future. There wasn't even any mention of the idea of going to Mars.

On reflection, however, the State of the Union speech was exactly what one should have expected from the Bush Administration. Bush entered office with little interest in policy or current affairs, and his election almost certainly didn't awaken any interest in those matters. This is a fellow, after all, who doesn't even read the newspapers, and depends almost entirely upon his advisors for ideas. So one would not expect new ideas from him.

Nor would one expect new ideas from Bush's advisors. His advisors have achieved what they wanted -- the war in Iraq, and big tax cuts weighted toward the well-off. They now are either basking in the after-glow of their success, or are trying to convince the public that the policies were not disasters.

Thus, the Bush administration consists of a president without ideas, and advisors who have accomplished their ideas. There is no one there with any new ideas, so the dearth of ideas in the State of the Union speech is hardly surprising.

As Dean Fades Away . . .

It appears that Howard Dean's candidacy is on the ropes. What does this mean? Probably that Democratic voters are rational.

If you opposed the war, there is no special reason to vote for Dean. With the possible exception of Lieberman, none of the Democratic candidates would have taken us into a war in Iraq. Thus, there really is no reason to favor Dean over any of the others on the Iraq issue. However, in other qualities (such as temperament), Dean seems a bit lacking. WIth any luck, his candidacy will quickly fade away.