Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"A" seems rather likely to me. Presumably, they have made projections--likely based on wildly optimistic assumptions--that bear out those numbers. And, since projecting revenues five years into the future is an almost meaningless exercise, he figures his numbers are as good as GAO's, CBO's, or whoever's.

I myself choose frightening possibility #3: George W. Bush believes so strongly, so powerfully in himself and in the rectitude of his choices that whenever he is challenged on anything, his one and only answer is his automatic reflex answer, which is: "they're wrong."

People think he gussied up the intel? They're wrong, end of story. Playing fancy shadow-puppets with the budget? They're wrong, end of story. Only takes leaking seriously when it makes him look bad? They're wrong, end of story.

John Kerry says this is the most arrogant, ideological administration in history, and he might be right. But at the tiller, more or less, is a guy whose only notion of seamanship is the eternal principle of the direction you're going in is the direction you wanted to go all along. Too bad we've steered into the worst part of the hurricane.

No, it's B. Honestly, these people are not conservative, they are not liberal, they are theives. They came in with an agenda, topple Saddam and tilt the economy towards accumulated wealth. Circumstance means nothing. Perceptions (besides how to spin them) mean nothing. They have these policies and it doesn't matter to them what the result is. The policies themselves are the goal not the consequences.

If "B" is true, what's he throwing to the core in recompense? Even they have to be aware of W's loyalty problem.

... right?

ObGreenSilkRoomMoment: "Vervain is your employer!"

C.

Or maybe possibility #4: Bush's advisors ginned up the budget and sold it to him, no doubt wrapped in all sorts of wonderful-sounding plausible language. Now that the budget has been released to the real world and the reviews are coming in, Bush cannot admit that his was sold a bill of goods on this budget. If he did so, it would be to admit that his administration is made up of a bunch of used-car salesmen and incompetent idealogues--not a very good thing for re-selection.

B. Because if A, he's just stupid; but if B, he's delusional. Of course there's always the combined option, supid-and-delusional, which pretty much incorporates Mark's #3 and Derelict's #4.

"We got to deal with Social Security as well. As you know, these entitlement programs need to be dealt with."

I am thinking that this soundbite, in the tone of voice he used, could win Florida and/or Arizona for us Dems.

#B is a lot closer to the truth, I'd say. Except that, though Bush knows he's lying, I doubt that he understands the details of what he's lying about-- or thinks that he needs to know.

The following quote is George Bush:

"Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut the deficit in half."

Why did not Russert ask: Mr. President, with all due respect, shouldn't the American people expect that their President would take the to learn the budget? Learn the assumptions underlying the budget?

This is what the press and Gore failed to do in the past election. They failed to expose Bush as a no nothing. They just let him stand up there and say (in words to effect): "I come from a good family. I know many rich and powerful people. I have good character. So you can trust me to make good decisions based on the advice I receive."

I think that the answer is "C": both A and B. He has marching orders: shrink government. They have chosen the most deceitful and destruction manner possible: reckless spending and reducing receipts. They are manufacturing a crisis. What Bush believes is that A his people will produce a budget that he can say cuts the deficit in half, because he's so trustworthy, everyone believes him. He doesn't have to know the facts, because his job is to sell, not formulate policy. Second, B, he doesn't give a rip about what Heritage, et al say because he is manufacturing a crisis and this time when the Republicans control all branches of government, they will ram through anything. The race here is for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

What really strikes me is the fact that he refers to the Highway Bill as an entitlement program.

"We are dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The highway bill."

I saw this on TV and the period after "Congress" doesn't belong in the transcript. He sped right through it, and I wondered, does anyone else think it's strange that he is conflating core governmental responsibilities with entitlements? Even Adam Smith thought that these kinds of projects (Smith specified canals) are best left to collective action. Is this bizarre juxtaposition one of his typical gaffes or is it a new Orwellian tactic of re-labeling programs in the never-ending quest to drown the government in the bathtub?

By the way, I think it's a modified "B." I think the long term goal is not just to line contributors' pockets, but to return us to the golden age of McKinley. That's why Grover Norquist isn't howling about the deficits.

If the way they dealt with medicare is helping us fiscally in the long term, God help us if he tries to fix Social Security. Don't fix anything, George. Get out of the kitchen and leave the cookin' to the professionals.

How would he know what's happening in the long term, there is no long term budget and the shit hits the fan after he leaves office.

The President is a man with no known previous interest in government. He apparently likes 'being' President, but the part that represents the real work of Presidency holds no attraction to him, which is consistent with his previous job performnance. He's basically lazy. Is that option E?

Carlos:

"If "B" is true, what's he throwing to the core in recompense? Even they have to be aware of W's loyalty problem.

... right?

ObGreenSilkRoomMoment: "Vervain is your employer!""

What does he have to throw the voter core?

'Christian, patriotic American Veteran who will fight the Evul [liberal] Furriner Terrorists, while cutting **your** taxes and getting the government off of your back!!!'

What does he have to throw to the big money core?

Tax cuts, regulatory cuts, government subsidies, and judges who think of Antonin Scalia as a bit liberal.

What does he have to throw to the ideological core?

AEI - the promise of empire, and general right-wing nastiness.
Heritage Foundation - see AEI, plus big money core.

CATO - Rhetoric and Jack Sh*t. Libertarians only matter to the extent that they support the GOP. Half of CATO will probably stay on, because deep down, they're Republicans, and would rather cut their hand off than vote for a Democrat. The other half won't amount to much, without those nice big money core subsidies.

Definately A. Bush has demonstrated in the past (think his debate with Gore) that he has no clue about his own budget numbers. Plus the WH believes that the tax cuts will give a supply side stimulus to the economy that will make up lost revenues. How do we dispell that popular fiction?

"B". They have proven time and again they don't care what effect their policies have on others.

Oh, man. The free fall is beginning. I've been in anguish over Bush's presidency for some time now... and feeling as if I were living in a comatose nation that I didn't recognize. But I've never forgotten the words of my mom, who passed away last year: "Time and again you will despair, but please remember: You have to give the American people some time. They'll figure it out." My mom's on the same page with Jefferson: If you believe in democracy, you must believe in the common sense and intelligence of the common man, no matter how badly they are deceived.

At this point, there's just too much that doesn't add up. Free fall time...

Krugman seems to be voting for B.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16911

Isn't it likely to be B? His time horizon does not go beyond this November, and which future president has to clean up his mess is of no concern to this essentially immoral man. And besides, Dick Cheney told him deficits don't matter.

The sense of entitlement argues, to me, for "B." Did Louis Quatorze bother whether his budgets balanced? Hardly. La gloire has its requirements. Bush was clearly irritated at having even ape a moment of accoutability.

He's made me quite a fan of democracy, though. If we'd had one here, he wouldn't be president. Gore was no prize, but he could do math.

Frightening possibility #C: Possibility #B is correct because President Bush wants to be the next Commissioner of baseball more than he wants to be re-elected.

Damn'it Brad. Such a stark choice. Do we have to choose now?

I know you liberals are pro-choice, but this is pushing the envelope.

Bush was so unconvincing, defensive, and packaged ("It's political season, Tim.") that I fear there will be an october surprise that will propel him to a win, a surprise to us, but maybe not to him. I don't want to speculate, but again I fear that this might happen given his extremely weak showing presentation and command of the facts.

In his MTP interview, Bush tells us it is A.

RUSSERT: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?

BUSH: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that, if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you will slow down economic growth. You will make it harder.

See, I'm more worried about the fellow looking for the job. That's what I'm worried about. I want people working. I want people to find work. And so, when we stimulate the economy, it's more likely that person is going to find work.
And the best way to stimulate the economy is not to raise taxes, but to hold the low taxes down.

...

BUSH: But I do know that lowering the child credit and thereby raising taxes on working families does not make sense when the economy is recovering, and that's exactly what some of them are calling for up on Capitol Hill. They want to raise the taxes of the families with children. They want to increase the marriage penalty. They want to get rid of those taxes on small businesses that are encouraging the stimulation of new job creation, and I'm not going to have any of it.

Is there any clearer evidence that the "supply side" trickle down mantra is chanted often in the WH??

Nope. I think Bush believes it. So I go with "A". What frustrated the hell out of me was that Russert didn't followup with something like "well, but you said that your past budgets would have the effect you're predicting for this one, and you have been proven dramatically wrong. So why should we accept your projections now?"

Watching this interview I had the strongest resonance to date with Brad's/Krugman's lament that the Washington press seems to be willfully ignorant on economic policy. Having even a basic familiarity with the details of these numbers would have given Russert enormous ammunition with which to press Bush.

Personally, I think that "B" is the more frightening possiblity and for that I'm thankful that I believe reality is "A". Disastrous incompetence is indeed frightening, but competent malevolence frightens me more.

Think "Martha Stewart". You tell the lie you tell. Then, you feel that sticking with the lie is an utter necessity. The part that Stewart has not yet faced, but that Bush is getting more familiar with all the time, is the plea deal. I serve less time (lose fewer votes) if I plead guilty? OK, but to what charge? I'll plead to being surprised that we didn't find any banned weapons, but not to knowingly misinterpreting intelligence to justify war.

It's a mix of A and B. Does anyone remember when Bush's people were touting him as the first "CEO President?" [That's kind of gone away now that Kenny Boy and the gang have made CEOs look bad, of course.]

We'll ignore the fact that he was a lousy CEO (unless playing meet-and-greet in the box seats at Rangers games constitutes powerful management aptitude).

This is a President who takes inordinate pride in being hands-off, in setting a direction and letting the "good people" he's hired run with it. So, like a typical CEO who spends time in meetings rather than reading and analyzing his "own" output, Bush truly believes what his good people are telling him.

But anyone who's gotten where W has has a finger in the wind at all times, so he's gradually figured out that very few people believe what he's asserting. So B is true, not so much in the sense that he knows he's lying, just that he suspects he's lying, but hey, what's anyone going to do about it?

He doesn't really believe that he's going to lose in November (though without a hand-picked board of directors doing the voting, it's hard to see how that's guaranteed), so it doesn't really matter what he says. When it does dawn on him that he might lose, then we need to be scared, because that's when political animals are at their most dangerous.

So do we have Caligula or Nero? Does it matter?
The republic is quite lost.

Man is the missing link between apes and human beings.

It is dangerous to confuse children with angels.

A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate.

A solved puzzle is just a picture.