Bush's very good year

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Bush's very good year

By Lawrence Kudlow
December 26, 2007

Against all odds, and despite the usual drumbeat of criticism, President Bush had a very good year.

The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.

At his year-end news conference, Mr. Bush said with optimism that the economy is fundamentally sound, despite the housing downturn and the subprime credit crunch. The very next day, that optimism was reinforced with news of the best consumer spending in two years. The prophets of recessionary doom, such as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Republican adviser Martin Feldstein, ex-Democratic Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bond-maven Bill Gross have been proven wrong once again.

Calendar year 2007 looks set to produce 3 percent growth in real gross domestic product, nearly 3 percent growth in consumer spending, and more than 3 percent growth in after-tax inflation-adjusted incomes.

Meanwhile, headline inflation (including food and energy) will have run at 2½ percent, with only 2 percent core inflation.

Jobs are rising more than 100,000 monthly and the stock market is set to turn in a respectable year despite enormous headwinds. Low tax rates, modest inflation, and declining interest rates continue to boost Goldilocks, which is still the greatest story never told.

Mr. Bush's optimism is well-earned, in Congress too. He has stopped a lot of bad legislation on higher taxing and spending. He won on S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and the alternative minimum tax. He mostly prevailed on domestic spending. And he got much of what he wanted on war funding without any pullout dates.

And he is not yet finished. In the most dramatic statement of his holiday news conference, Mr. Bush said he will not stand for continuing congressional proliferation of pork-barrel earmarks.
"Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks the Congress included in the massive spending bill," said Mr. Bush. "The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks.

Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I am instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

This is huge. The statute of limitations for Republican overspending, over-earmarking, and over-corrupting that caused huge congressional losses in last year's campaign will not run out until the GOP shows taxpayers it again can be trusted on key issues of limited government and lower taxes.

In these matters, Republicans must be holier than the pope. And while President Bush has been doing the Lord's work with his newfound veto pen, he must continue to wage war on earmarks if the GOP is to cleanse the political memory of Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

This behemoth spending-bill was porked-up with such essential items as rodent control in Alaska ($113,000); olive fruit-fly research in France ($213,000); a hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania ($200,000); a bike trail in Minnesota ($700,000); a post office museum in Las Vegas ($200,000); and a $2 million monument to Rep. Charlie Rangel in New York.
Republican senators like Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona are working hard to clean up the earmark process. But the ball's in the president's court. Either by executive order, rescission authority or apportionment of funds, Mr. Bush can elevate both the nation's fiscal fortunes and his party's political fortunes.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, told me in a CNBC interview that elected politicians are more knowledgeable about spending people's money than faceless bureaucrats. And while Mr. McConnell has done a terrific job maintaining conservative policies in the Senate, he is wrong on this topic. The earmarks shouldn't be made. And the money shouldn't be spent. Period.

Mr. McConnell is nevertheless correct that passing this omnibus spending bill is a defeat for the tax-and-spend-happy Democrats. Republicans also can take credit for outmaneuvering the Democrats on a patch for the AMT. The Democrats were made to waive the pay-as-you-go budget rule that might have forced tax increases on businesses and investment pools. Stopping this tax hike is a singular Republican achievement, while the AMT will now be indexed for inflation, thereby sparing more than 20 million taxpayers.

Looking ahead, the economy also would benefit from a corporate tax cut for both large and small businesses, including corporate capital-gains. The U.S. dollar would reap the rewards as new investment flowed in from the world. Several recent studies also show businesses would pass on tax-cost savings to the work force, thereby bolstering wages and ultimately creating new jobs.

Hokey ideas for temporary tax rebates? They should be ignored. But if the president and Republicans wipe out earmarks, hold down spending, and pass a bold corporate tax cut, Goldilocks will be nourished and sustained. Come November 2008, Republicans might be back in the driver's seat.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.
 
Kudlow likes Ron Paul like I like Ron Paul... that doesn't mean he's going to vote for him.

It's great that he's putting those ideas out there into the public forum again, that doesn't mean you want him running against the Democrats in the general election.
 
Kudlow likes Ron Paul like I like Ron Paul... that doesn't mean he's going to vote for him.

It's great that he's putting those ideas out there into the public forum again, that doesn't mean you want him running against the Democrats in the general election.
Kudlow thinks Ron Paul is a loon? Never heard him say that. But how nice of you to put words in Kudlow's mouth. Idiot.

Except that he's the ONLY candidate doing that. None of the others have the intestinal fortitude to give up their powerbase.

And I DO want him running. If we get Huck McRomniani we'll still be under the thumb of the big FED.
 
Kudlow thinks Ron Paul is a loon? Never heard him say that. But how nice of you to put words in Kudlow's mouth. Idiot.

Are you listening to the voices in your head? Where did I saw "Kudlow thinks Ron Paul is a loon?" Please, provide me the quote.


Except that he's the ONLY candidate doing that. None of the others have the intestinal fortitude to give up their powerbase.
Yes, Paul will say important and valid things that tend to make him unelectable.
Paul also says stupid things that also make him unelectable.

The only consistent thing is that Paul is unelectable. Whether you're happy or sad about this is besides the point, fact of the matter is, he can't win the general election.


And I DO want him running. If we get Huck McRomniani we'll still be under the thumb of the big FED.
I don't agree with your doom and gloom assesment of the other candidates, or your lazy tendency to lump them all together as though there was no difference between them.

But rest assured, ONE of them IS going to win the nomination. Unless you just want to experience the "feel good protest vote" for Paul, you'd better pick the best of the rest of them. Frankly, it's a very strong field of capable candidates, anyone of the front runners (minus Huckabee) can beat the Democrats.
 
Are you listening to the voices in your head? Where did I saw [sic] "Kudlow thinks Ron Paul is a loon?" Please, provide me the quote.
Are you denying that you called Ron Paul a lunatic? All you've ever said about Paul that is significant is that you think he's a loon. In case you don't know this, anything good you could possibly say about Paul is dwarfed and overridden by such a nasty, pejorative statement. If that's what you think of him, and you say that Kudlow likes him the way you do, then Kudlow must think he's a loon as well. It's quite logical, despite your whiny protests to the contrary.
Yes, Paul will say important and valid things that tend to make him unelectable.
Paul also says stupid things that also make him unelectable.

The only consistent thing is that Paul is unelectable. Whether you're happy or sad about this is besides [sic] the point, fact of the matter is, he can't win the general election.
Wrong. But: If you're so certain of this, please enlighten me as to which of the candidates CAN win the general election, especially based on the wide open nature of the current primary. We know that "can win" is your only criteria, not who will be the best, conservative leader. I will cue the Jeopardy music just for you.

I don't agree with your doom and gloom assesment [sic] of the other candidates, or your lazy tendency to lump them all together as though there was no difference between them.
Then defend your position. Tell me EXACTLY what the differences are between them. Which one is not for bigger government? Why should I not call you a RINO for supporting any of them?

That's the one thing you have been unable to do, respond to a direct challenge which I've laid down in front of you REPEATEDLY. If you think one or more of the other candidates who (have a VIABLE chance of winning) are worth voting for, please demonstrate this by using any and all available evidence to support your statement. Otherwise, it's just more and more of the same empty rhetoric and unsupported blather that you normally spew. Dare I say you sound like a coward? You are unwilling to take a stand for one of the other candidates? Are you a pragmatist at heart? :rolleyes:

But rest assured, ONE of them IS going to win the nomination. Unless you just want to experience the "feel good protest vote" for Paul, you'd better pick the best of the rest of them. Frankly, it's a very strong field of capable candidates, anyone of the front runners (minus Huckabee) can beat the Democrats.
I notice that, once again, you deliberately avoid telling me your opinion of who the "best of the rest" is. Again, it is a cowardly dodge on your part.

So your only criteria for picking a candidate is "who can beat the Democrats?" Wow that's very, very intelligent, thoughtful, incisive, decisive, analytical, and cogent. NOT. What an intellectual lightweight you must be. :rolleyes:

You call yourself a constitutionalist conservative. The candidates can't ALL be aligned with you politically. Name one that you think is the closest to your beliefs. I'll wait with bated breath. NOT.
 

Members online

Back
Top