Progressive Democrat Issue 67: THOUGHTS

Well, Bush sure messed up with the ports deal. Even his own party didn't like the idea of outsourcing our ports. Come on, Bush. Our ports are a national resource. Our trade and our security depend on them. Can't America take care of its own ports?

Honestly, when I found out New York's port was being run by a British company I found it disturbing. But the sale to Dubai seemed even worse simply because the United Arab Emirates have been one of the nations with the closest ties to groups like the Taliban and is, next to Saudi Arabia, one of the nations where the most support for al Qaeda comes from. Having our ports run by ANY foreign nation is bad enough. But having them run by a nation that has ties with people we are at war with seems particularly disturbing.

Bush has tried to spin it as a racial discrimination issue, that people are objecting because of prejudice against Muslims. Well, I suspect that this is true in some cases...Americans are sadly prejudice against Muslims. I have heard countless examples well BEFORE 9/11. I remember one experience in Texas in the 1980's when I overheard a conversation where one person was discussing how awful Islam is and that it is the worship of man. His evidence for this was that ALLAH must stand for "Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head" and thus meant worship of man. He was so proud of his “discovery.” I was flabbergasted at his utter ignorance. But I am sure his ignorance and prejudice is not unique. Too many Americans have probably never met a non-Christian.

But to claim that the opposition to the ports deal was only due to prejudice is simply false. Simply put, America should be running its own ports and NOT outsourcing it to ANY nation. Are we going to sell our army bases to the lowest bidder to run? Would that make sense? It is an embarrassment that we cannot run our own ports! Why is Bush so confused by that?

But there is something I want to mention that few people will have noticed. This last week, finally, a noted Republican economist basically disowned the entire Bush economic policy as irresponsible and came right out and said that the economy was better under Clinton’s policies than under Bush. This economist, Bruce Bartlett, was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. So we aren’t talking a maverick here. We are talking a solid, supply-side Republican. And yet his disgust at George W. Bush overflowed this week, leading to some very interesting commentary.

I get this from My Left Wing:

Bartlett's previous employer - a conservative think tank - fired him because Bartlett's anti-Bush views were making it difficult for the think tank to raise money. Below are some of Bartlett's observations about the current Bush expansion. Something you will immediately notice is Bartlett likes facts, making him anathema to current Republican leadership.
The following appeared in a column on Marc 6 titled What Bush Boom?

One of the main criticisms I have received from friends on the right about my new book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is that it ignores an important point -- that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have been so good that they in effect compensate for or excuse his huge increases in spending and other anti-free market policies.
When I ask what was so great about the tax cuts, they point to the "booming" economy. I have yet to hear any other evidence offered.
Let's look at the record in the standard way economists do, starting from the trough of the last recession in November 2001. Since that time we see these results, through the latest data:
Real gross domestic product: Up 13.5 percent
Real gross private domestic investment: Up 32.3 percent
Payroll employment: Up 2.8 percent
Standard & Poor's Index: Up 13.9 percent
Viewed in isolation, these numbers seem impressive enough. But without context, they really tell us nothing. To provide such context, I looked at these same statistics over the same time period from the end of the previous recession, which ended in March 1991, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. This is what we see:
Real gross domestic product: Up 13.25 percent
Real gross private domestic investment: Up 43 percent
Payroll employment: Up 7.7 percent
Standard & Poor's Index: Up 45 percent
Thus we see that real G.D.P. is very slightly higher, but all the other numbers are substantially worse in this expansion compared to the last one. And it is worth remembering that taxes were not cut at all during that business cycle but were, in fact, raised twice. George H.W. Bush raised taxes as part of the 1990 budget deal and Bill Clinton raised taxes substantially in 1993, shortly after taking office. The hallmark of both tax increases was an increase in the top tax rate -- considered anathema by supply-side economists -- which went from 28 percent at the end of the Reagan administration to 39.6 percent during the Clinton years.

So, a Republican economist admits that Clinton's economy was better in terms of job growth, domestic investment and stock market performance EVEN THOUGH Clinton raised taxes. So let’s face facts. Bush’s popularity has fallen through the floor. He is one of the least popular presidents in American history. The hatred of him felt by the left is through the roof. And experts within his own party are starting to abandon him is utter disgust. Bruce Bartlett, welcome to reality. You are stating something that many of us on the left figured out years ago. But I am glad to see that some die hard Republicans are finally figuring it out.