http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15012 Bush Is Losing It By Marty Jezer, AlterNet January 23, 2003 It was a bad week for the Bush administration, and it's likely to get worse. The American people are beginning to understand the folly and greed that inform its economic policy. And most of the civilized world has turned decisively against the Iraqi adventure. The great coalition that George W. Bush proposes to lead against Saddam Hussein is now a coalition of two, and British prime minister Tony Blair has lost the support of his own people, most especially members of his own Labor Party, who warn of a political revolt if Britain goes to war without a new UN resolution. In France, 75 percent oppose Bush's policy; in Germany the number is 76, in Italy it's 61. In Turkey, a country crucial to the Administration's military effort, opposition to the war, according to the Wall Street Journal, registers at between 80 and 90 percent. Even the Journal is wondering what's up. As staff reporter Gerald F. Seib wrote on Jan. 22, "President Bush's policy toward Iraq is in distress, and the reason is stunningly simple: His administration hasn't made a very effective public case for war with Saddam Hussein." In the United States, confidence in the Bush Administration is evaporating, and it's no wonder. Reality is out-running the rhetoric. The Administration has announced probable federal deficits of $200-300 billion over the next two years (which many experts conclude will be higher). While Bush proposes huge tax-breaks for the wealthy, the General Accounting Office says that social security faces tax increases and benefit cuts if it is to remain solvent. Anticipating the coming deficits, the Administration has shamelessly cut veteran benefits to what it describes as higher-income veterans. In fact, the new cut-off applies not to wealthy veterans but to middle-class veterans with annual incomes of $30,000 to $35,000. Many states are confronted with multi-billion dollar budget deficits and will have to raise taxes, most of which will fall on working people, the middle class and the poor. In an attempt to save money for the states, the Administration is moving to limit emergency room access to Medicaid patients; i.e., to senior citizens and low income families. Is there not a pattern emerging? Slash taxes for the rich, slash services for everyone else? Bush introduced his plan to abolish the tax on stock dividends by saying "double taxation is wrong." But, as Daniel Altman wrote in the New York Times (1/21/03), "Corporate dividends "are not the only kind of income that is taxed twice. Other taxes create a double, triple or event quintuple burden. And unlike the double taxation of dividends, which mainly affects the wealthy, the burden of other forms of multiple taxation – sales taxes, import taxes, payroll taxes, among others – often falls most heavily on poorer Americans." Yes! What Bush proposes is class war. Utilizing a Reagan-era tax loophole that grants larger business deductions to pick-ups than it does to ordinary cars, the Bush Administration, according to the Times (1/21/03), would "increase by 50 percent or more the deductions that small-business owners can take on the biggest and most expensive sports utility vehicles and pickups." Thus, if a small business owner buys a gas-guzzling (10-11 mpg) Hummer HI, with a list price of $102,581, he or she can deduct $75,000 from the price as a capital equipment deduction. A business that purchases a gas-efficient (45 mpg) Toyota Prius with a $20,500 sticker price, can't even deduct half of that cost, even with the $2,000 deduction the government is allowing for fuel-efficient vehicles included. In a radio address on Jan. 18, Bush declared that his tax cuts would give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 a year." As New York Times economist Paul Krugman noted, an "average" is a meaningless figure. If one business owner gets a tax-break of $20,420 and nine business owners get nothing, the average tax-break is $2,042, as Bush has described it. The reality, however, as Krugman pointed out, is that most business owners will get less than $500 and about 5 million business owners will get nothing. Bush's promise of a tax windfall to help the economy is a sham. And the public is catching on. A CNN-Time poll shows support for Bush down to 52 percent, just 1 percent higher than Bill Clinton's worst showing during the era of Monica Lewinsky. An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll registers Bush's support at 54 percent, his handling of the economy at 44 percent and his handling of foreign policy at 51 percent. By more than two to one, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans prefer more spending on education, health care and social security than a tax cut, which 61 percent correctly perceive as benefiting the wealthy. A dwindling majority still supports a war against Iraq, but only with U.N. backing and only after the weapon inspectors are given time to do their job. Bush could take credit for getting the U.N. to focus on Iraq and effectively containing Saddam, but he seems to be intent on war. Faced with the European demand for diplomacy, Bush had a snit fit. "This looks like a rerun of a bad movie and I'm not interested in watching it," he declared. Those are not the words of a statesmen or a world leader. As an American, I am embarrassed. As more and more people are coming to understand, this isn't a movie we're watching. It's real life with real consequences, and many people are going to die. A war in Iraq risks destabilizing the Middle East, invites terrorist attacks against Americans all over the world, and will encourage politically motivated attacks on civil liberties here at home. Bush is losing it. His composure, his "good-guy" image, the debate about economic policy, the sympathy and support of the international community and, as polls indicate, the backing of the American people. Marty Jezer's books include The Dark Ages: Life in the U.S. 1945-1960. He writes from Brattleboro, Vermont and welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net
Even the Journal is wondering what's up. As staff reporter Gerald F. Seib wrote on Jan. 22, "President Bush's policy toward Iraq is in distress, and the reason is stunningly simple: His administration hasn't made a very effective public case for war with Saddam Hussein." Sadly, this is what many of us have been saying since last summer. He needs to make the public case for it -- and he needed to do it many months ago. The longer he goes without it, the more the opposition will build, and the more radical that opposition becomes. The more opposition you have when the likely war starts, the worse the consequences will be - here and around the world. For a political team so savvy at managing expectations and attitudes, they are REALLY missing the boat on this one.
A CNN-Time poll shows support for Bush down to 52 percent, just 1 percent higher than Bill Clinton's worst showing during the era of Monica Lewinsky. An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll registers Bush's support at 54 percent, his handling of the economy at 44 percent and his handling of foreign policy at 51 percent. Is this true? Last I heard, his poll numbers were pretty good right now?
It doesn't matter how low the polls go, Bush goes with his heart, not with the pollsters. That DOES explain it ... "That evil man (Saddam) tried to kill my daddy!"
Let me preface this by saying that although I lean away from the left, I don't lean towards Bush. That being said, I'd like to address the liberal slant on this one seeing as it's near and dear to my heart, and this is the second time I've seen it this week. This tax loophole they're talking about is the Section 179 deduction, and the deduction is generally limited to $24,000 for 2002. There is a NYC "Liberty Zone" around ground zero, and a few "empowerment zones" in poor areas that allow a small percentage of tax payers to deduct more. On the one hand, they say the proposed increase is 50%, but the $75,000 figure they are throwing out is more than three times the current year's deduction. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and just say that they have their facts wrong. I have no idea what is REALLY being proposed because the numbers they are giving are conflicting. Regardless, this is not a "clear and free" deduction from your taxable income every year. What it really constitutes is accelerated depreciation. It allows you to deduct $24,000 a year on depreciable business capital items. There is a restriction on automobiles such that it actually makes more sense to use straightline depreciation, but an auto is defined as an automobile or light truck under 6000 lbs. gross vehicle weight. SO, there is a loophole that favors larger trucks and SUV's. But the real incentive is to use it on things like computers and office equipment that lose their value quickly. For instance, assuming the limit is raised to $75,000, and you buy that hummer they are talking about. Yes, you can deduct $75,000 from that year's taxable business income, but you've just depreciated it by 75 grand. If you want to buy another one the next year and you sell your current hummer for 15K less than you bought it, YOU HAVE TO ADD $60,000 IN ORDINARY INCOME TO THAT YEAR'S TAX BASE. It's called depreciation recapture. If you keep the hummer instead, you won't be able to depreciate it as much the next year as you normally would. Regardless, you're eventually going to have that recapture whenever you sell it or convert it to non-business use. So the real value in the deduction is NOT in reducing your taxes, but in deferring them. The only true dollar's you save are based on the time value of money. It will reduce your taxes this year, but you won't be able to take as much depreciation on your vehicle next year or for the three years after that (a car is a five year property). Your taxes will be lower this year, but higher for the following four. Small businesses and self-employed people often have a hard time "getting over the hump"--especially when we pay over 13% to social security. Granted, it can be argued that if employers didn't pay half of their employee's SS, they could pay their people more. Regardless, establishing yourself as a startup can be tough going, and the Section 179 deduction helps the little guy. Could the Section be reworded to make it work better? Sure..you could start by taking out the language the favors trucks and SUV's--which has been there for a long time. I'm still going to drive a full size truck, but at least the service wouldn't be encouraging other people to do the same. But moving the figure up to 50 or 75K would be a huge boon for small businesses. The actual dollar's saved (based on the time value of money), might only be four or five grand depending on the life of the depreciable property, but the deferment of taxes this year might help some struggling companies/people stay afloat. What really pisses me off about the liberal slant on this (besides the complete screwing up of the facts) is the misrepresentation that this will be a free and clear slashing of seventy five grand off of Joe Schmow's tax base. It isn't.
Don't say that, not after I just worked on a paper about a recent article in "Presedential Studies Quarterly" called The Permenance of the "Permanent Campaign": George W. Bush's Public Presidency. To date, he has spent just as much time on the road campaigning his issues and checking the pulse of america as Clinton did.
Even now, an explanation is too little too late for me. As you said, this should have been done months if not a year ago.
Well, of course he is still campaigning for his ideas. The difference is he campaigns for what he believes in. He doesn't campaign for what the polls say is popular.
Well, of course he is still campaigning for his ideas. The difference is he campaigns for what he believes in. He doesn't campaign for what the polls say is popular. You mean like the Homeland Security Dept, which was a Democratic proposal that Bush adamantly opposed until it was popular with voters?
Why do people have a problem with presidents being swayed by polls? I guess they are just supposed to do what they want. Forget about the voters who put them there in the first place.
He campaigns for what his donors want, just like every other politician, regardless of ideology or party affiliation. If you think he is different, you're delusional.
Okay Bush isn't perfect. He signed campaign finance and did those steel tariffs as well. (Though the tariffs were for the purpose of gaining fastrack votes).
The voters aren't always right. Constant pandering to special interests and voters could be disatrous, you'd end up with a tax cut for everyone coupled with subsidies for everyone.
Some do it a lot more than others. Do you really think Bush would have taken his tax cut plan off the table? No way.
