Badmouthing the goodmouthers
Over at Michelle Malkin’s blog, one Betsy “All I needed to know about incentives I learned from my husband” Newmark writes:
The Media Research Center conducted this study and concludes:
The federal deficit is shrinking, unemployment has fallen, and America has seen more than two straight years of job growth. But broadcasters have been describing the economy as “dicey,” “volatile” and “slow.”
We’ve written a few times about the deficit and taxes, and it remains one of our favorite topics. Which is why we couldn’t resist seeing what the CBO had to write about it (PDF🙂
Although the deficit for 2005 is lower than previously expected, the fiscal outlook for the coming decade remains about the same as what CBO described in March. If the laws and policies currently in place did not change, the deficit would shrink slightly over the next few years relative to the size of the economy, CBO projects, and then would decline more sharply after 2010, reflecting the tax increases scheduled to occur after provisions of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) expire. […]In CBO’s current baseline, the deficit for 2006 is $16 billion higher than estimated in March; the cumulative deficit for the 2006-2015 period has risen by $1.1 trillion.
And people say Bush is fiscally irresponsible. Then again, when your supporting arguments come from the Media Research Center and John Lott, you’re on pretty thin ice as it is.
Bonus points: The MRC’s “study” concludes thusly:
When it came to gas prices, journalists repeatedly flogged President George W. Bush and the energy bill for not lowering consumers’ costs. […] Reports like those worked from the assumption that the government could and should somehow intervene in pricing ? a concept unseen in stories on prices of everything from movie tickets to automobiles. Journalists failed to explain how the market determines prices based on demand for gas and the available supply.
Maybe they blame Bush because he said he would and could fix gas prices:
I think the president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say: ‘We expect you to open your spigots’ …The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price. And if, in fact, there is collusion amongst big oil, he ought to intercede there as well..
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Spigots:
Bush said today that he would bring down gasoline prices by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude. “I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply. Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.”
Of course, while the MRC is adamant Bush doesn’t derserve blame for oil prices, they’re pretty sure he deserves the credit for the good economic news.
John Lott cannot possibly be a real person. I think he is the creation of a little known woman Mary Rosh.
go to LGF!
reg=open
Whenever there’s actual research and analysis and stuff, you can always tell it’s a Seb post.
Whenever there’s actual research and analysis and stuff, you can always tell it’s a Seb post.
That’s not fair! Me and Brad do a lot of actual… The third thing you said, after ‘analysis.’
“creating enough good political good will with oil producing nations”
I can site specific policies that enraged Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Apart from that, what kind of political nicety will make doubling of revenue without extra investments a non-preferred course of action?
In the same time, 90% of American cars have gas milage decreased by 20% because they have too much power (e.g. compare Civic with Cavalier). Increasing gas mileage of new cars by 20% requires no new technologies whatsover. With new — but already existing — technologies, it can be doubled.
Demand at 100% of supplies — sellers market. Demand at 90% of supplies — buyers market. It is rather elementary.
I’m surprised the MRC and Newmark missed the talking point that high gas prices are the liberals’ fault because we won’t let them put oil wells all over the wildlife refuges and national parks and all.
Well, it’s obvious that even after four-and-a-half years that you haven’t learned the ins-and-outs of Republican Math?! It’s really quite simple:
Good News=Bush deserves all the credit, whether he had anything to do with it or not.
Bad News=It’s somebody else’s fault, even when the only possible suspect is Dubya and all evidence points toward him.
Easy-see!
Why doesn’t Bush open up the spigots of the Strategic Oil Reserve????
Oh, that’s right. The SRO is only supposed to be tapped for national emergencies…or in case someone starts a war based on falsified intelligence. (remember: Bush topped off the SRO back in 2002 in preparation for going to war in Iraq. Hmmmm, I wonder how the SRO is doing today with all the talk about Bush attacking Iran in the next several months).
Anyway, Bush would never tap into the SRO to help lower gasoline prices today. It goes against his free-market philosophy, which BTW only seems to help his fat-cat friends to the detriment of everyone else. For instance, during the California energy crisis of 2001, California’s leaders petitioned Bush to have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission step in and do something at odds with the Bush philosophy…regulate. In other words, while Enron was raping the California utilities and their rate payers, Bush stonewalled. Months went by. Billions of dollars of excess utility charges accumulated. Later, it was discovered that one of Bush’s biggest campaign supporters, who headed Enron, was behind the price gouging in California.
So, the idea that Bush would step in today and release oil from the SRO is laughable. If he did this, it might cut into the record profits oil companies are making. So, once again, we see the Bush philosophy at work…screw the little people while rewarding all his fat-cat friends.
And, if I remember correctly, a real Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned us about corrupt people like Bush fifty years ago. Of course, he also warned us about the military-industrial complex and people like Dick Cheney, too, with his Halliburton ties and a proclivity for starting foreign wars to pad the bank accounts of his fat-cat friends in the military-industrial complex.
I wonder how many millions of dollars in profit Cheney will realize from his Halliburton stock because he orchestrated a war in Iraq based on “fixed” intelligence and the use of blatant lies to support his scam? Oh, that’s right, he’ll either be out of office, or dead from a massive heart attack, but any profiteering by him will probably be classified, you know, for the sake of national security. Unfortunately, we’ll probably never know the true extent of corruption in the Bush administration, unless enough conscientious “partisan” whistleblowers start exposing the inner-workings, the rampant corruption of what has to be the most evil administration this country has ever seen.
And the idea that they are Christian is a slap in the face of Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus had a word for people like Bush and those who back him…”thieves.”