Oh Unhappy Day


From World War I until Gulf War II – these are the bookmarks that define the American Century. All through this period the United States enjoyed economic, military, and political ascendance, and by the time Germany surrendered in 1945, the United States was the preeminent global power in so many dimensions that it truly “owned” the 20th century. In the realm of finance, American supremacy was symbolized by the AAA rating accorded its government securities, a rating the United States has enjoyed since 1917.

Now the United States has lost its AAA rating, and deservedly so. It has shown itself incapable of dealing with many serious financial and economic problems, One of its two major political parties has deliberately – yes deliberately – attempted to force a default on US Treasury securities, so that it can engineer its vision of a fiscally prudent America, one in which it is forbidden ever to raise taxes on wealthy people. This despite the fact that, other than corporations, wealthy people are the only source of incremental tax revenue for a government desperately in need of cash flow.

This is a disgrace, an eternal shame on the American political leaders who allowed this situation to develop. But one man above all others stands out as responsible for this tragedy: George W. Bush. George Bush came into the presidency with so much money in the treasury that it was possible to see the national debt retired completely if he continued on a path of budget surpluses. Instead, he chose the opposite. He initiated a series of massive tax cuts that were heavily skewed towards rich people and corporations. Within his two terms, he managed to rack up a level of deficit spending that exceeded the combined deficits of all previous presidents. This deficit spending – which was really nothing more than a give-away of the nation’s wealth to rich people – now weighs like a pair of cement boots on a country desperate to keep its head above water.

He had accomplices. He had an imbecilic Vice President in Dick Cheney, who asserted that “deficits don’t matter.” Cheney said that he learned this lesson from Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the modern Republican Party, who certainly shares some of the culpability for his naïve adoption of “supply-side economics”, a get-rich-quick scheme that promised tax cuts would be met by even greater tax revenues as the private sector put its “own money” to work expanding its business and hiring people. It never worked that way in reality. The private sector squandered the money on useless luxuries, while corporations enriched their executives with bonuses for their assiduous efforts at out-sourcing American jobs to Asia. The gulf between the wealthy aristocracy and everyone else has grown to such an extreme that the US ranks ahead of Brazil and Mexico in terms of economic disparity.

George W. Bush presided over the largest wealth transfer in the history of the country. He also presided over a political party that made it a mortal sin ever to increase the taxes of the wealthy, thus locking in this discrepancy among the classes, and allowing a nepotistic oligarchy to arise. This is certainly one way to destroy a democracy, and the results are now evident for all to see. The Congress is composed of millionaires, and is funded by corporations, who engineer tax breaks for themselves while they close down plants in the US and ship them overseas. The Republicans block every effort to raise taxes or in any way shift the tax burden away from the middle class and poor people, and back on to the wealthy. They are happy, however, to carve away the social safety net, because that comports with their belief that social spending is a waste of money on the lazy and ungrateful masses.

Historians will argue whether the economic, military and political decline of the United States in the 21st century was inevitable, given the rise of China and other emerging markets powers. Certainly there are sound arguments in favor of this view – look at the troubles Europe is having maintaining its living standards in the face of so much intense economic competition from Asia and elsewhere. But if you accept that the United States was inevitably going to have to share power with other nations in this century, the US still had the means to control how this happened. The US could have created a gentle process of shared political and military power, avoiding confrontation with China, India, Russia or other countries, and developing ways in which regional conflicts of any sort could be managed in a multi-polar world. Economically and financially, the US could have kept its financial house in order and maintained its AAA rating for many decades more. This would have maintained the dollar as the reserve currency of the world.

None of this happened. The United States under George W. Bush brandished its unchallenged military might as a tool to recreate the world in its own image, especially that part of the world that sold oil to an energy-dependent America. George Bush went to war – he always wanted to be a war president to ensure his place in history as one of the greatest presidents of all. His wars, however, were paid for not with cash raised from taxes, but with borrowing, because as Ronald Reagan taught us, “deficits don’t matter.” Bush compounded this error by giving away hundreds of billions of dollars every year in tax revenue that the wealthy were expected to pay. He authorized very costly tax holidays and deferrals for corporations. In essence, he bankrupted the Treasury. That is the only way you can describe it when you consider that just a week ago the US Treasury, at the height of the debt ceiling crisis, had only two or three days worth of spending money left in the cash till.

The only defense Bush has is to argue that the practice of borrowing for current needs was well established at the federal government by the time he got to the White House. But this is a defense which damns the Republican Party, because all of the ramps up in the public debt were initiated by Republican presidents, especially Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The periodic retreats into fiscal rectitude were initiated by Democratic presidents, especially Bill Clinton.

This isn’t to paint the Democratic Party as fiscal saints. Plenty of Democratic Congressmen have enjoyed loading up budget bills with their favorite programs, financed only by debt. But at least the party seriously followed pay-as-you-go principles when in control of the Congress. The Republicans have recently discovered the virtues of this approach, but their goals are not really to balance the budget, as much as to destroy the domestic social safety net. The wealthy and corporations still get a free pass under Republican austerity programs, while the poor and middle class pay a larger and larger bill.

No, things did not have to turn out this way. Whether by malicious design, economic naïveté, or intellectual laziness, George W. Bush forced the nation down this path. The first serious consequences of his presidency are now upon us, with the loss of premier financial status. Next up, probably several years down the road, will come the loss of the dollar as the globe’s reserve currency. Americans will enjoy for the first time paying for oil in someone else’s currency.

When you hear Republicans and Democrats argue over who was responsible for the loss of our AAA rating – pointing fingers at Barack Obama or the Tea Party congressmen - take a step back a minute. Think what might have been if the Supreme Court had awarded the presidency to Al Gore in 2000. It won’t take long for you to realize that, along with trillions of dollars of debt we owe to the rest of the world, we should reserve a special debt of loathing for George W. Bush.


Numerian August 7, 2011 - 12:49pm

link

From sub-prime mortgages in 2007 to the newly downgraded US debt status, the latest crisis point is unlikely to be the la

Tina August 7, 2011 - 1:32pm

just a couple of small quibbles. The Wee Bush doubled the national debt..., Ronnie very nearly tripled it.

http://agonist.org/amc/20090123/bushs_two_term_increase_in_the_national_debt

And I believe that Cheney's quote is taken out of context. If I am not mistaken he was referring to the deficit spending not mattering in the re-election prospects of the Wee Bush. "Reagan proved that" he said.

I still contend that the Wee Bush rushed us to war to "get the economy going" before the re-election campaign..., making him far more evil than Ronnie ever was. The mantra of "war for oil" should be dispelled by now. We are still there because Obama can't shut down the one and only cylinder still firing on this sputtering engine of an economy we have.

Other than that..., I repeat..., GREAT piece.

Right on partner..., write on.

http://scottrthequillayutecowboy.blogspot.com/

Scott R. August 7, 2011 - 2:01pm

I forgot to mention the Wee Bush's Supreme Court appointments that have solidified an already right leaning court.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151889/how_a_corporatist_supreme_court_cabal_joined_forces_with_right_wing_and_kochs_to_quietly_sell_out_our_democracy/

Scott R. August 7, 2011 - 2:09pm

Whatever one thinks of Obama's deficit spending, much of it went to mitigate the pain of the economic collapse that Bush brought about. Moreover, at least Obama has been honest enough to include the war spending in the total deficit. Bush always had this approved under a separate authorization.

I still believe that the Republican plan is to inflict the optimum pain on the economy to force Obama out, without themselves taking any of the blame for the coming collapse. The polls indicate they are not fully succeeding at this, but the public disgust with the Republicans is not yet so severe that they will back off. Plus, for many of them, it is a religious responsibility to attack all things liberal and leftist.

Numerian August 7, 2011 - 2:27pm

all on the Wee Bush's plate. There are a whole lot of other "we's" that contributed mightily to this collapse..., like the folks with $50,000 incomes buying $500,000 homes with nothing down, interest only loans, with the intention of turning them over in a couple years at enormous profit. With no small amount of help from fraud and financial finiggling by Wall Street that enabled those loans to be made. And folks using the "equity" in those high priced homes as a virtual ATM. There is plenty of blame to go around for the economic collapse..., but the Wee Bush sure did nothing to mitigate it.

You are right on again about "the Republican plan" though. Their only hope is that the economy is so bad that it will be an "anybody but Obama" election. And it very well could be one.

Scott R. August 7, 2011 - 3:04pm

to engineer this scenario. He was a willing tool of a well-organized effort by the Right, just as was Reagan. Both were ignorant and GWB was also stupid. Obama has the smarts to know all this, but he's a closet rightwinger, so he'll shut up and keep with the program.

One can argue that the Dems brought this on themselves. Unfortunately, they also brought it on the rest of us.


Retiring Mainframe maven, active curmudgeon, poet, writer.

steeleweed August 7, 2011 - 2:10pm

I agree with your condemnations of Bush, but at the end of his terms, Bush had thoroughly discredited the Republican Party and the conservative governing approach. Obama was elected with the largest Congressional majority in over a generation. And then Obama proceeded to worship at Bush's altar.

Bush's TARP was defeated and then Obama rushed to Washington to whip for it, to get the bill passed that rewarded the MOTUs who created the crisis. He announced his desire to "reform" entitlements. When the Congress (heavily Democratic) wouldn't go along, he stacked a "bipartisan" committee on deficit reduction with long-announced enemies of Social Security. The committee couldn't agree on a report, so the leaders wrote one saying that although Social Security didn't contribute to the deficit, they decided it was a good idea to cut it anyway.

Despite the large Democratic Congressional majority, Obama declined to take Democratic stands. He insisted on pandering to Republicans in order to be "bipartisan", that is, to rehabilitate the discredited Republican Party. Those of us who got fund-raising calls from the Democratic Party had it explained to us that Obama was helpless to do anything because Democrats only had 59 senators. Funny, George Bush, whom you excoriate, got everything he wanted with 50 senators, and during his last two years, a Democratic House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, Obama widened the war in the Middle East, increased the expensive arrests of undocumented aliens, prosecuted whistle-blowers (a sure way to decrease savings from waste and fraud).

In addition to the expense stuff, there's the politics stuff. Obama kept Bush appointees whose philosophy is anti-government, or rather the use of government for partisan ends. It is appalling that the U.S. Attorneys who pursued political cases are still in office. So why should the Republicans act anything other than crazy?

So the Democrats got control of Congress in 2006, increased their majority in 2008, and got control of the White House as well in 2008. And look what they did with it. Just compare what you wrote about George Bush's effectiveness at getting his loathsome policies enacted with Obama's ineffectiveness at what he said he wanted for policies. Oh, those crazy Republicans. Oh, poor, poor Democrat Obama, with only a very large Democratic majority until 2010 when a disgusted population decided to try the other party again. Congratulations, Obama, for success in saving the Republican Party.

Oh, and the results of those huge Bush tax cuts for the wealthy whose "results are now evident for all to see"? Well, they were due to expire. Polls show that over 70% of the people wanted them to expire. Obama looked at the results which are evident for all to see, and decided that extending them is just fine.

Bush was a ghastly, destructive president. Obama is solidifying his destructiveness.

nihil obstet August 7, 2011 - 6:04pm

Obama is seeking approval from those who despise him because of his color. For this reason he has and will continue to suck up to the Republicans .... “I’ll do anything you ask me to if you please, please, like me”. Obama is a very insecure man who is uncomfortable inside his own skin. He ain’t no Martin Luther King who was proud to be black.


Sexual inequality is "The Mother of all Inequalities".
Liberate female sexuality and you will eliminate racism, homophobia, financial greed, and violence.

adrena August 7, 2011 - 7:52pm

Yves Smith sees the downgrade as a brazen political by a corrupt organization, who, btw helped mightily to cause the collapse:

Just as the Y2K threat was overstated but nevertheless had unexpected, adverse intermediate term consequences, I doubt this chicanery will be cost free to the public at large. But the debt overhang that ideologues have used to whip the public into a funk is profoundly deflationary unless addressed head on, via writedowns and bankruptcies offset by fiscal stimulus. Deflation means that high quality bonds are the place to be, as the market action of last week confirmed, so Treasuries benefit from the very condition that S&P depicts as a disaster.

Thus the best outcome would be if the bond and currency markets shrug off the S&P action, which would reveal that the much feared downgrade was a paper tiger. But even if the marker response is underwhelming, it is hard to imagine that Obama will not take a political toll for his colossal miscalculation. It was he who stoked the debt ceiling phony crisis to implement a neoliberal agenda, who refused to reverse course and threaten to circumvent the debt limits when the process had clearly spun out of his control.

So even if S&P fails to land a body blow in the markets, its ploy has garnered press that seems certain to taint the Administration, and thus confirms the power of its reckless conduct. Thus the cost is not likely to show up in bond yields, but in something far more fundamental: in yet more destruction of the foundations of our society for short-term, selfish ends.

Matt Stoller sees the downgrade as furthering a neo-liberal agenda.

Of course, on a larger level, this is not an American story, it’s just the latest iteration of the liquidation of society by international investors. As just one more example, Naomi Klein wrote about S&P and Moody’s being used by Canadian bankers in the early 1990s to threaten a downgrade of that country unless unemployment insurance and health care were slashed. Incidentally, there was an aggressive high end tax cut campaign going on at the time.

The current austerity wave in the US is the same play. The goal of S&P is to ensure that there is a bipartisan set of spending cuts to social programs that benefit ordinary people. That their “downgrade” is being taken seriously by Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, John Boehner, Bob Reich, Dick Durbin, and most American political leaders shows that they share this goal. S&P is just doing the lobbying work.

Despite the fact the US deserves the downgrade, the circumstances and timing make it particularly cynical.

edit: formatting

Epok August 7, 2011 - 6:07pm

very well planned plundering, which destroys the country and steals our money, wealth, our jobs and unity. leaves behind a poorer, economically destroyed America, like all those Banana Republics in Latin America we created. ripping off the Latins finally caught up with us for hosting these parasitical corporations.

the Coup d'etat that was Bush vs. Gore ended our freedom, signified the 1st step of a gradual takeover by the Rich Corporations which now writes the legislation Congress passes. like ALEC, they run America now. this is close to last few episodes in the Kabuki, where the money disappears "officially." like those 12 billion or so in Iraq during the Bremer rule.

the rape of America for profit.

Bernard August 7, 2011 - 11:05pm

he says that all state funded retirement plans are barred by law from investing in anything less than AAA bond funds..., he says that the S&P downgrade is a ploy to get that money currently invested in Treasury Bonds into the stock market..., ie..., straight to Wall Street. I've always thought my brother was a dummy..., any truth to what he is saying?

Scott R. August 8, 2011 - 12:37am

They are designed to assure minimal if no credit risk. I presume they will now change the rules to allow AA rated paper. If they don't make this change, then your brother may be on to something.

Numerian August 8, 2011 - 1:18am

The results of 8 years of Bush policies are obvious, yet the conservative movement is stronger than ever.
The credibility of Standard and Poor's is shit, yet we pay attention to their credit rating of our country.

Wake me up, sober me up, shake me out of this acid trip, because this can't be reality.

Awake August 8, 2011 - 12:59am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.