My "Mission Accomplished"

Courtesy of the Associated Press

Once and For All...

After 10 grueling years of bitter partisan attacks and facing calamities incomparable to those faced by nearly any other president, former President George W. Bush (R-TX) (jokingly known as 'Dubya') is still smiling and offering a helping hand. The former president left office nearly two years ago: amidst the worst economic conditions since the great depression, with the worst approval rating in United States history, and having been charged with starting two unnecessary wars. Academia had turned its back on him declaring during his last year in office that he would unanimously go down as the worst president of all time. 

 With a rap like that one would think that 'Dubya' would have just crawled into a one of his companies many oil wells and thrown himself in, yet that is not the case. Instead, the former president has kept a busy schedule: he partnered with his immediate predecessor, former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), to help provide disaster relief in Haiti; has been tediously writing his own memoir; and apparently has been having secret phone conversations with President Barack Obama (D-IL). All of this, coupled with the revelation that most of the academics who previously denounced him have since rescinded their attacks, and some Gallop polls have suggested that a theoretical election between himself (G.W. Bush) and President Obama would result in a tie. Yet the attacks keep coming, even presidential courtesy being forgotten when Obama called Bush out by name, so this post holds a special purpose for me. Anyone who has followed this blog would know that I am not a huge Bush fan; however, I intend to finally end the debate (at least for myself) over the effectiveness of the Bush Administration by delving into the three biggest issues surrounding his name: the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and the Economic Crisis.


Making the Cut

The Bush tax Cuts occurred in 2001 and 2003 in two pieces of highly partisan legislative acts known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (two pretty creative names if I may say so myself). These two acts were both hotly contested in both chambers of Congress, and were designed to build off of each other and work together. The 2001 cuts, commonly known by its acronym EGGTRA (pronounced egg-tra) generally lowered taxes for nearly every tax payer. It created a new 10 percent tax bracket for those with the lowest income while also lowering all of the other tax brackets, some as much as 5 percent (this was given to the lowest tax bracket which under EGGTRA only paid 10 percent in income taxes which previously had been at 15 percent.) The middle tax brackets each received a 3 percent decrease in income tax rates lowering them to 28 and 33 percent respectively. Another aspect of the cuts was that it made some pension plans more flexible and even allowed for new 'catch up' clauses to be put in place for older workers so that they might be able to retire at the average age. It also improved upon Roth IRA funds allowing for side funds to be set up that could be co-mingled for investment purposes.

The 2003 Tax Cuts had a huge impact by speeding up the gradual implementation plan set up for the first round of cuts. The new bill allowed for cuts of up to 3 percent in a single year which would have never happened under the previous bill. The 2003 cuts also changed Section 179 of the tax code to allow tax payers to deduct the full amount of purchased items from their income without having to depreciate the amount, thus saving tax payers money in the long run. The cuts also reduced "qualified dividend' taxes which were reduced to 5 and 15 percent rates.

An analysis of the tax cuts is not simple but it can be done. To start, most Democrats claim that the cuts favored the rich and moved the tax burden onto the middle class. However, the Wall Street Journal wrote that between 2003 and 2006 the amount of taxes paid by millionaire households increased from $136 billion to $274 billion. It proved that the lower tax rates encouraged more wealthy tax payers to actually pay their taxes rather than avoiding them through tax shelters. However the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the tax cuts would increase the national deficit by $340 million dollars by 2008. Democrats also cited the weak economy during 2001 and 2002 as reasons for why the tax cuts were bad; however most economists agree that the recovery from the 9/11 attacks and its economic repercussions would have been drastically slowed if the cuts were not in place. In conclusion, the bush tax cuts have been empirically proven to be more progressive than the system previously in place, which to me makes perfect economic sense. Yes the cuts weren't perfect and it may have even raised the deficit by $340 million dollars over 7 years, however in the grand scheme of government budgeting and deficit, that is but a drop in the bucket.


Toppling Saddam

On March 20th, 2003 the United States of America led an invasion of Iraq with two purposes: to bring the tyrant Saddam Hussein to justice, and disarm his rumored arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. 21 days later the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein was destroyed and the country seemed to welcome the change of arms. However all was not well as the country soon found out. Insurgent violence ran rampant and US soldiers became policing agents instead of a military force. But the trouble was even worse back home. President Bush's approval rating tumbled from its peak, 98 percent (the highest approval record ever recorder), because suddenly he was back tracking. Suddenly Iraq did not (and no evidence existed that they ever) have (had) weapons of mass destruction. And with Bush was forever tarnished to the American public. Americans as a whole are generally suspicious of their government and President George W. Bush had just offered them food for thought. I honestly believe that had the Bush Administration used some other reason as the cause for invasion (or that the Iraqi War had never happened) the American public and history would view him much differently. (Much like how almost the entirety of the Richard Nixon (R-CA) presidency is over shadowed by Watergate.)

As of tonight, August 31st 2010 America had lost over 4,400 of its best and bravest sons and daughters to a war nearly a world away. Tonight combat missions in Iraq are ended forever and tonight 31,234,000 Iraqi's are living in freedom. Yes it is a truly tragic thing that over 4,400 American troops sacrificed their lives for the country and the rights of others, but because they gave their lives an entire country is free. The United States has created a stable democratic nation out of the ashes of a failed tyrant. Not only that, but we have also gained an ally in the center of the Middle East and all of its conflicts. This is a moment for sadness and reflection, but also an occasion for joy because so many more people in this world are free.

Some may question the entire previous paragraph because they claim that the country is in fact completely unstable, however this charge is flawed to the core. As of September 2009, the Department of Defense released its quarterly briefing on the stability pf Iraq. In the report it states that civilian casualty rates were at a five year low and even Joe Biden (D-DE), although trying to take credit for it himself, proved this claim wrong. In an interview with Larry King, Vice President Biden said that by the end of the summer the American public would see a stable government in Iraq claiming that the Iraqis were using the political process rather than the gun to solve their problems. Vice President Joe Biden says it all and I really think that every American is aware of to whom the credit should go. There is something to be said for having invested nearly six years of his life into something rather than just coming in at the end for the kill.


Bursting the Bubble 

The last, and polls show it to be the most important, issue that affects the Bush Administration as well as country today, the effects of 'Bushenomics' and deregulation. However, the charge that President Bush must take sole blame for the concept of deregulation and its (still disputed) affect on our economy is ridiculous. The concept of deregulation was in grained into American economic thought for decades before Bush was ever in the White House.

The first real step towards the deregulation rush that has swept into the American economy today actually began in 1978. In that year, the Supreme Court changed usury laws in the landmark case Marquette National Bank v First of Omaha Service Corp. This case allowed the state usury laws to be applied rather than federal laws which acted as a huge incentive to financial institutions to gain more control over banking practices and to establish different interest rates. A few years later President Jimmy Carter signed into law legislation that would eliminate all ceilings on interest rates within six years. The reality of that statement may need some explanation to really sink in. President Carter, a Democrat. signed into a piece that eliminated all interest rate caps which was sent to him by House of Representatives with a large Democratic majority and also a Democratic majority in the Senate. In short, Democrats established some of the most lucrative deregulation practices. When one remembers that a major factor in the 2008 Economic Recession was the bursting of the credit bubble because of sky high interest rates as well as ridiculous interest rates on home loans, it seems the blame must spread around.

It is true that some of President Bush's economic policies did directly influence the economic downturn; however, they were but the capstone on the issue. Deregulation was an American mindset, supported to some degree by both parties, and thus no single party or person can be blamed for its effect. As a side note, it should be noted that deregulation has not been directly linked as the main cause of the economic collapse. Some deregulation practices have allowed for more businesses to higher more people and allowed the United States markets to reach its highest volume ever recorded, back in 2004 and 2005.

"Mission Accomplished"

Looking back on eight years of a Bush Administration is a huge task, one that can not be done in a single day, or even a single year. To conduct a full study of every policy, every order, and every decision could take a life time. That is why my analysis focused on what I consider to be his three biggest name sakes: the tax cuts, the War in Iraq, and the recession. I have provided ample analysis and done a large amount of research into each category and I am left with feeling of conviction that George W. Bush will never be considered the worst President ever. In fact, his legacy I believe will be vindicated, much like President Eisenhower's, as America heads into the future. His tax cuts, although not perfect, established a more progressive system over all and provided the single largest tax cut to the people who needed it most, the lowest tax bracket. The war in Iraq provides the single largest stain on his record. The public will not focus on the 31,234,000 people who now get to enjoy freedom and self government, nor will the majority somberly pray for the over 4,400 United States citizens who gave their lives fighting for the rights of others. Instead they will remember that President Bush lied, and that is truly tragic.

The last aspect of the Bush Administration I examined was the economic policies pursued and the effect (or lack there of) that deregulation had upon the 2008 Economic Recession. The most common criticism is that he pursued deregulation relentlessly and that he was its sole advocate; yet, that simply isn't so. Deregulation, in today's terms, began in the late 70's in the Presidency of Jimmy Carter and has continued and amplified since. I am not saying Bush is blameless for it would have taken more courage and leadership to break with tradition, but he can not be blames alone. Every President from Carter to Bush is at fault and that is why we now see the current administration hyper actively pursuing the opposite direction and in fact beginning to hyper-regulate certain industries (i.e. banking and automobiles).

In conclusion, President Bush may be blinded by tradition and yes he did lie, but he also is responsible for establishing the most progressive tax system Americans have seen in living memory as well as freeing over thirty-one million people who had before lived in the shadow of tyranny. He is by far not the best president, but he is definitely not the worst. I have in fact accomplished my own mission and have proved, at least to myself, that the Bush Administration was mostly effective in its policies and did govern for the people, and really what more could anyone ask from government?

Later,
Cody