One place where George W. Bush can still get standing ovations is at the University of Texas at Tyler. The university’s president introduced him by saying that Bush was the “most determined, principled, compassionate and successful” president this country has had. Bush then went on to describe how he missed Air Force One and being coddled, and that he avoided picking up his dog’s poop for eight years while he was president. Then he made an admission (emphasis mine).
Bush said he sat in the White House with his economic advisors Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke three weeks into the economic downturn.
He said Bernanke told him, “If you don’t do something significant, you’re likely to see a depression greater than the Great Depression.”
“Depression, no depression,” Bush said. “It wasn’t that hard for me, just so you know. I made the decision to use your money to prevent the collapse from happening.”
That has proven to be a very unpopular decision, but it fell to President Obama to implement Bush’s plan. It also fell to Obama to pass a stimulus bill to partially plug the hole Bush had created by letting the economy come to the point of collapse in the first place. While knowledgeable economists warned that more than a trillion dollars were needed to plug the hole and stop massive layoffs, the Republicans adamantly refused to offer the president any support for a package that consisted of less than $800 billion, of which about a third consisted of tax cuts. When Arlen Specter courageously broke with his party to cast the deciding vote, he knew he was no longer a viable candidate for reelection as a Republican and he switched parties.
The Obama administration did not repeat the practice of the Bush administration of mailing tax rebate checks to everyone so that they would be well aware that they received a tax break. Instead, they followed knowledgeable economists’ advice and spread the tax cuts out through lesser paycheck withholdings. This was done because it is believed that people are more likely to spend the money and spur demand if they receive the money this way than if they get one big check. This was another courageous act. President Obama explains:
In a recent interview, President Obama said that structuring the tax cuts so that a little more money showed up regularly in people’s paychecks “was the right thing to do economically, but politically it meant that nobody knew that they were getting a tax cut.”
“And in fact what ended up happening was six months into it, or nine months into it,” the president said, “people had thought we had raised their taxes instead of cutting their taxes.”
And the result is telling:
In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know.
In fact, the stimulus bill cut taxes for 95% of Americans. The reason they didn’t notice is because state taxes went up in thirty states and there was downward pressure on wages. Those state taxes would have gone up more if not for the president signing a bill in August 2010 that gives an additional $26 billion in aid to states to keep their police officers and teachers employed. Well, either taxes would have went up, or communities would have far fewer police officers and teachers. In truth, as USA Today reported in May, the 2009 tax rates were the lowest since 1950 and the onset of the Korean War.
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
“The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts,” says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.
This is an interesting fact to keep in mind when considering that the ‘T’, ‘E’, and “A’ in Tea Party stands for ‘Taxed Enough Already.’ The reality is that no one in the work force has ever enjoyed a lower level of overall taxation. Could that maybe explain why we have such big deficits?
We are in an era of misdirected anger. Arlen Specter made a career out of being wishy-washy, but he was run out of office for making a courageous and correct vote. People are mad at the president for raising their taxes when he actually cut them. They blame him for a program initiated by his predecessor from the other party. The noisiest political movement in the country is predicated on the fact that we are being taxed too much, when we’ve never been taxed so little.
It’s nuts. And George W. Bush is getting standing ovations.
Bush spoke Tuesday before a sold-out crowd of 2,000 people during the 76th lecture as part of The University of Texas at Tyler’s Distinguished Lecture Series.
He walked on the stage to a standing ovation. People in the audience were pumping their fists and whistling. One audience member shouted, “Bring back Bush,” at one point during the presentation.
He would receive at least two more standing ovations before the end of his speech.
No one is more to blame for this current madness than Mr. Bush. He weaponized the Stupid and McCain deployed it with Palin.
Was passing TARP the most successful action of the Bush administration?
quite possibly.
Define “success.”
If you’re referring to prudent public policy, there’s not much competition. But given the amount of effort Bush et al expended on enriching the already-wealthy, they were extraordinarily successful at it. Of course, that had other effects for the rest of us, but as Bush himself might say, “It wasn’t that hard for me, just so you know.”
I meant success referring to reasonable public policy that benefited the country/world as a whole. Obviously you’re right that for a certain class of (really rich) people the Bush years were totally awesome.
The only other competition I can think of for “good” Bush public policy is his increased funding to fight AIDS in Africa. That’s always the initiative that people trot out as evidence that Bush actually did some beneficial stuff.
i think it’s actually been noted by a surprising number of AIDS activists that Bush’s AIDS policy was more compassionate and more effective than Obama’s.
and while i’ll concede much of the mess is Bush’s, I find it interesting that HAMP, an abysmal failure, goes unmentioned.
Get these comparison (fact v. perceptions) down to a chart or one or two sentences, and you might start to sway the populace.. Only a few days left until ‘elections’..
The USA Today article about taxes being the lowest since 1950 is stunning.
Here are some details about 1950 that I dug up.
1950 Tax Brackets and Maximum Tax rates (individual income tax, filing jointly):
$0 – $4000 17.40%
$4000 – $8000 20.02%
$8000 – $12,000 23.66%
$12,000 – $16,000 27.30%
$16,000 – $20,000 30.94%
$20,000 – $24,000 34.58%
$24,000 – $28,000 39.13%
$28,000 – $32,000 42.77%
$32,000 – $36,000 45.50%
$36,000 – $40,000 48.23%
$40,000 – $44,000 50.96%
$44,000 – $52,000 53.69%
$52,000 – $64,000 56.42%
$64,000 – $76,000 59.15%
$76,000 – $88,000 62.79%
$88,000 – $100,000 65.52%
$100,000 – $120,000 69.25%
$120,000 – $140,000 70.98%
$140,000 – $160,000 73.71%
$160,000 – $180,000 76.44%
$180,000 – $200,000 79.17%
$200,000 – $273,428 80.99%
$273,428 – $300,000 82.503%
$300,000 – $400,000 83.430%
$400,000 ane over 84.357%
Stanford University, PoliSci 120, Federal Tax Brackets
Income distribution for 1949:
Top 20% 47.0% of national income
Second 20% 24.0%
Third 20% 17.0%
Fourth 20% 9.0%
Lowest 20% 3.0%
1949 Census Bureau Report dated Dec. 1, 1951
The median family income in 1950 was $3300.
The median family income in 2009 was $49,777. In Connecticut, the median family income was $68,851 (the highest) and in Mississippi, it was $36,076 (the lowest).
The CPI multiplier for 1950-2010 is 9.06. The median family income in 1950 has the same buying power as a family income of $29,898 today.
In 1950, the standard personal exemption was $600. This was increased legislatively; in 1986, it began being indexed to the CPI.
So a family in 1950 making the median income of $3300 and filing jointly would deduct $1200 for husband and wife and $600 for each child. A two-person family would have an AGI of $2100 and a maximum tax bill of $365.40, which is a maximum effective tax rate of 11%.
The President has done a pretty good job considering the circumstances. However, the communication strategy hasn’t been effective enough.
Given the state of the media and the power of the conservative propaganda machine, communications should have been one of the highest priorities. When they began struggling with getting their message out, that is pretty soon in 2009, they should have hired real “pros” in communication, publicists even. When you face a media culture more interested in ratings and trivia than in nitty gritty policy, when you face opponents who have a huge avantage in exposure and money, you don’t have the choice: you must bring your a-game and hire the best of the best.
I can sympathise with the President and his team because just governing has been so overwhelming given the circumstances. But they’re paying a very heavy price for their mistakes in communication strategy.
“No one is more to blame for this current madness (the era of misdirected anger) than Mr. Bush.”
Bush is responsible for the facts. But Obama is responsible for anger about the facts being misdirected. He has not used the bully pulpit nearly enough to educate voters about the cause of our problems. The Tea Party types are convinced to a man and woman that Obama has raised their taxes. That is Obama’s fault.
Is it, though? 30 years of “Tax and spend Democrats” is Obama’s fault? Obama could have given people checks and they STILL would have said he raised their taxes.
I remember right when the election was over, one of my ex-friends wrote on his facebook status “Not looking forward to paying higher taxes under Obama…” Facts be damned, the guy thought Obama was going to raise taxes before he was even in office despite what was said on the campaign trail. And no, he does not make $250,000; the guy is 24 years old and makes less than $100,000.
Knowing that Republicans and anti-tax “conservatives” are going to lie no matter what the facts are puts the onus on Democrats to tell the truth loudly, publicly and frequently to people who do care about the facts. If Republicans lie and Democrats tell the truth, the news media either won’t report on the subject at all, or they will “balance the truth with a lie,” as Edward R. Murrow called it. This isn’t “fair.” So, yes, it’s our fault, starting with the guy who occupies the bully pulpit.
When did Obama become the sacrificial goat for the whole Dem/liberal establishment? The Tax and Spend crap worked in large part because Dems/liberals were too stupid and cowardly to address the issue head-on. Instead they tried to outdo the wingnuts. We haven’t heard a consistent and coherent explanation of the elementary fact that stuff costs money in decades. If anybody’s to blame for cementing the notion that, yeah, taxes=bad, it’s as much Clinton and most of Congress.
If Obamba’s at fault for anything, it’s his unwillingness to keep explaining what Bush/Rove/Cheney and their kind did to America, and what bullshit their “concern” with taxes and the deficit really are.
Agreed.
To be clear, I say that the communication strategy has been lacking but I’m not saying the situation is ALL the fault on the WH. Because the task is, indeed, very difficult when you have to deal with 30 years of conservative propaganda, and with a media that isn’t able to sort out the truth anymore and is being reduced to “he said/she said” naratives.
To be fair, there’s also another factor: the message in itself is difficult to convey. For example, how do you explain to a population rightly concerned with deficits that you have to spend around a trillion dollars to save the economy ?
How do you prove that if you hadn’t saved the banks, things would have been much worse ?
You can’t find sound-bites for this.
It’s complex, but the soundbites are not that hard to find: Economists of every political stripe say that without the stimulus, unemployment would be 20 to 25 percent today.
Agree with everything you say, especially the part about Clinton. Obama is just the current Democrat sitting in the White House who didn’t say ‘this proves that everything the Republicans have been telling you about deregulation, taxes and deficits is nonsense.’ Clinton didn’t say it, because he believed a lot of it. If Obama believes otherwise, he sure let a very teachable moment go by.
This, coupled with many individual’s general laziness about keeping informed, has produced the often heard (at least by me) statement that President Obama hasn’t done anything. Far too little has been done about addressing these misperceptions.
Juan Cole is done-zo on NPR for saying the ‘Muslim’ clothed people scare him on planes. I didn’t realize there was a common fashion shared exclusively by a billion people (outside of Hadj pilgrims). I wonder what the outfit looks like in Juan’s minds’ eye. Or does he just know it when he sees it? Talk about fashion police!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/10/21/npr.analyst.fired/index.html?hpt=T2
I’m sure the Juan has worn out his welcome at NPR due to his antics at Fox, but now Fox can really get on their case for ‘liberal bias’.
When they do that, someone has to be there to point out that means that anti-Muslim, fear-based bias is a core conservative principal now and to violate it is to be ‘liberally biased’.
Damn right.
that’s JUAN WILLIAMS..
apologies to J. Cole..
The thing is, as you noted this is contributing to Republicans winning the House and maybe in longshots, the Senate. That will do a great deal to fuck up the economy. Hindsight is 20/20, but if you look at it that way you can look at the taxcut decision to be a mistake politically AND economically.
Note, I’m not saying this is Obama’s fault. No one obviously could have predicted just what would happen. But that in the post mortem, you can say it was a mistake.
Listening to economists is always a mistake in hindsight.