He lays it all out to Lloyd Grove over at The Daily Beast. One quote:
“The Bush years were a huge failure, both economically and internationally,” he tells me. “On the economy, we’re not doing anything to create private-sector jobs, and we’re losing our manufacturing base, but it didn’t happen overnight. It’s accelerating during the Obama administration, but from 1999 to 2009, we lost one-third of our U.S. manufacturing jobs. Five million good American jobs have gone away…”
Here’s the thing about Pauken. He is right. If more Republicans followed his lead in owning up to the truth, instead of clasping their hands over their mouths for fear of saying something that doesn’t follow the partisan script, conservative principles might stand a chance of revival.
24 comments
Amen.
Wick,
Unfortunately, he’s not right. He seems to equate “losing our manufacturing base” – which I understand as the amount of stuff we are making – with manufacturing employment. Manufacturing employment is down, but it’s been going down consistently since the 1950s because of the remarkable increase in productivity per worker. That does not mean we are losing our base. In fact, 2005 (the last date for which I have numbers) saw the highest manufacturing output in our nation’s history.
Why would they complain? It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
He is right. Most elected Republicans haven’t supported conservative principles, choosing instead to just do less than the Democrats. It’s what drove me away from the party.
“If more Republicans followed his lead in owning up to the truth”… Or, they complain about NYC zoning issues (where to build a mosque) and constantly field the “race-card” ploy. You know, traditional “small government” stuff.
Pauken is obviously a realist, yet does not go far enough. While manufacturing jobs decreased, there was a substantial increase in private-sector jobs through defense spending under the Bush administration. For the most part, it’s an industry sustained by the Obama administration, and intimately related to Pauken’s description of Bush’s ineffectual—yet lucrative—handling of the threat of radicalism: Blackwater, Triply Canopy, Halliburton/KBR, Fluor, Betchel, Dyncorp et al.
You can’t believe anything Pauken says about GWB – or Wick Allison for that matter – they have both been virulent antagonists of the former President since day one.
Much like Anakin Skywalker, Pauken’s hatred of the Bush family caused him to turn to the dark side. His admonitions aren’t to be taken seriously.
While Bush certainly wasn’t perfect on the budget, anyone with a scintilla of insight could have predicted Obama would be far, far worse. A mid-year budget review by the Obama administration forecasts the deficit will be $1.47 trillion this year. That is the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America since World War II, as a portion of GDP. That deficit is about 10 percent of GDP; the Bush-era deficits were typically about 3 percent of GDP.
…..@Barrwin says…Bush certainly wasn’t perfect on the budget…..
Big time understatement.
However, most libs I know are probably more put out with Obama than they were Bush because we expected so much. To us, he seems like Bush Part Deux.
@Barrwin
Your numbers are misleading. Factor out Bush’s $1.9 Trillion tax cuts for the wealthy and two unpaid-for wars. Then you can talk about the deficit. It’s official. Bush Junior is the worst president in modern history.
@2cents: Haha. That’s funny. I voted for Bush twice. But you’re right about this: I have been off the Bush bandwagon for a long time. Even so, I am still sorry I was such a slow learner. Pauken warned about Bush long before. It is ironic that the fact his warnings came true you now use to discredit him. No one is more blind than the man who will not see.
I told Wick once so I’m saying it here: Wick Allison is an example of someone whose mind is getting more agile, ‘younger’ if you will, as he ages. While, generally speaking, far too many of us become calcified in our thinking/opinions as we rocket into our senior years. Shades of gray do not exist.
That said; This post proves anew that Wick sure knows how to drop a cheery bomb into a koi pond. As they say at the fish fry, ‘Batter up’.
@Wick Allison, there you go again, quoting Jeremiah 5:21.
You, you, you, virulent antagonist you!
I’d say wick has merely calcified in the other direction. But, rest assured he’s not a Democrat. Take his word for it.
I can’t wait until we start talking solely about the politicians that are now, or will be in office. Not the politicians that “were.”
During the Bush years, libs bashed him and republicans would reply with “but Clinton did XXXX.” Now, during the Obama term, republicans are bashing him and the libs are saying “Bush was the worst president ever.”
Why don’t we hold those who are in office accountable and forget about those who no longer have the power to lead? Who cares if you supported Bush…it’s Obama’s spotlight.
Right on @2cents, you hit it just right regardless of what Wick now says. Of course, you could just have easily substituted the name “Rick Perry”. I do feel sorry for @M Street who obviously has early Alzheiners forgetting President Jimmy Carter and President BO. My, my, what a short or no, memory.
Here’s a graph from the Washington Post showing the Obama deficits vs the Bush deficits. I encourage everyone to take a look:
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg
@Arec Barrwin, that chart from the Heritage Foundation shows ACTUAL Bush deficits while showing PROJECTED Obama deficits.
Obama inherited the PROJECTED Bush deficits, too, which that chart pleasantly doesn’t show. Let’s look, shall we?
In 2004, it was reported that “making the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts permanent would reduce revenues by $1.7 trillion through 2014. Including the added interest payments on the debt, the total increase in budget deficits would be $2.0 trillion.” The long-term deficit estimates for the Bush tax cuts are greater today than they were in ‘04.
And yet, at the ‘04 State of the Union, Bush called for making those tax cuts permanent before they hit the 2010 retirement date.
Remember, having these rounds of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of income earners expire in 2010 is precisely what Republicans voted for (and they did the biggest of the cuts via reconciliation, an approach they later bemoaned when the dems did it with health care). They could have obtained smaller, immediate cuts that could more easily be made permanent, but in each case they chose massive cuts that expire in 2010. They chose this approach, let’s be clear, to mask the deficit that would be inherited by Bush’s successor, not to mention that they funded two wars off the books for the same reason.
W’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill (former Chairman of Alcoa), agreed with the first Bush tax cut but had concerns about the next one because war had descended. He went to see Dick Cheney about it. The veep leaned over his desk, curled his lip, and said “F*** deficits. We won, and this is our due.” O’Neill was soon out, and Bush’s economic tide lifted no boats, only yachts. In fact, by the time W left office, even they were sinking!
The Heritage chart is disingenous because it doesn’t reflect any of this reality, or the reality that some added deficit spending would be necessary to pull the country out of the ditch we were driven into by the global economic collapse that happened on W’s watch.
We’re all concerned about the deficit. It’s unsustainable longterm. But let’s have the full picture on the table.
People like me might believe this latest Bush bash if you held your colleagues in the Liberal Mainstream Media to the same standard. Where is the outrage over how many networks not just Fox News ran that clip of Shirley Sherrod that made her appear to be a racist. Nobody watched the whole clip. How about this Journolist clique of bloggers and other elites who manipulated the stories to fit their agendas? Where is the outrage?
One slight clarification/correction: the Heritage chart may well include the projected Bush deficits, but, of course, it puts them on the Obama side of the ledger exclusively, as if they were created on his watch. That’s the disingenuousness of that chart. Equally disingenuous is that Republicans blame Obama for the total deficit while wanting their large chunk of it to remain. That’s rich (literally!!!)
In a baseball context, a lot of Obama’s deficit constitutes unearned runs that came from the previous pitcher. Surely the former Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers can appreciate that!
Jonathan:
I’m confused. I thought that liberal mainstream media would be considered redundant. Please advise.
Let me see if you understand this Bethany! How about you showing the same outrage you do to anything Bush towards some of your fellow colleagues in the media. Doesn’t their handling of the Shirley Sherrod case bother you? How about the members of the Journolist blog that Howard Kurtz said “Acted more like cagey Political Operatives than Journalists. Some people are bothered by these cliques.
Simmer down Jonathan. The D in D Magazine stands for Dallas. Pauken, Bush? Dallas and Texas. Sherrod and Journolist? Not Dallas and Texas.
So bring them up isn’t exactly germane to the conversation. So quit asking me about my level of outrage here. E-mail me, and you’ll get an eyeball full.
These “Journalists” are posted in many papers in this state without so much as an eye being batted. Nobody mentions it! If you want to blame Bush you could also include the Republican and Democratic-controlled Congress which did nothing to regulate what went down. These are things to be brought up.