The Financial Condition and Fiscal Future of the United States
Posted by David Tucker
. . . According to the Comptroller General of the United States.
This suggests some changes that all the change agents in the Presidential campaign should address.
1:23 PM / January 12, 2008
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Bush should just do nothing. Whatever he touches turns to dross. His recent folly is on gun rights and the 2d Amendment. And when not screwing up domestic affairs, he validates the views of the Arab League by cavalierly dropping references to "occupied" land.
It's almost as if Bush was doing as much as possible to challenge Jimmy Carter for being known as America's worst President.
What's next? Perhaps revisiting immigration "reform?" It's as David Frum said: "They can't be that stupid, they just can't....."
His administration doesn't even have the intellectual wherewithal to defend the dollar. "EVEN THE CLINTON administration knew enough to do that!" And that's not my observation, that's a quote from Steve Forbes.
Really, though, how did we get to 53% mandatory spending? How does anyone change anything with that kind of fact in place?
Thank you for the neat, though depressing, document, Mr. Tucker.
Dan, now you are hitting Bush on guns? You, a Giuliani supporter?
YES! Giuliani wouldn't have been so stupid to push gun control at the national level. You needed a Bush for that. Not to mention, were he President, he would have been kind of busy. He wouldn't have wasted his time on gun control. Failed presidencies look for such gimmicks late in their 2d term. It was a President desperate for a domestic legacy that seized upon immigration "reform." AND THAT WAS BECAUSE OTHER THAN ROBERTS AND ALITO, HE HAS NO DOMESTIC LEGACY, other than leaving a party in ideological disarray in his wake. There's a great deal that needs doing in Washington, and Giuliani would prioritize, and that means gun control wouldn't be a part of his presidency. Furthermore, take a look at his legal staff, men like Ted Olson didn't sign on to push gun control. I can assure you of that.
Remember, there are two issues here, one concerns the substance of the proposed policy; the second is the overall political impact of that proposed policy. EVEN IF Giuliani fully subscribed to the substance of gun control, he's too smart to ever allow himself to get afield from his base over it. AS MAYOR, when he never thought he'd have a chance for The White House, he pushed gun control as a means of gaining votes.
But notice that you don't hear him pushing gun control on the stump. You don't hear him mention that at all. And that's because he's NOT going to be pushing that at A NATIONAL level. He would see a fight over gun control as a book not worth the candle; it wouldn't pass a cost benefit analysis.
BUSH HOWEVER advances precisely those policies for which he'll take a hit; Bush wrongly thinks himself the more virtuous, the more he's opposed within his own party. Thus he thinks he's almost doing God's work when he's opposed by a super-majority of his own party.
Bush BADLY CONFUSES personal and public virtue. He's a truly confused person. To be blunt, Giuliani isn't so damn dumb as GW, and I mean flat out dumb. Thus he'd NEVER get himself in the midst of a fight with his base over gun control. The very idea would be laughable.
However, if Giuliani doesn't start hitting hard in Florida, he'll have no juice going into Super Tuesday.
So unless he makes a dramatic recovery, the details of a Giuliani nomination and presidency are irrelevant.
It's as I said before, I don't subscribe to every particular of Giuliani's campaign platform. Nonetheless, I support him.