Cory’s Takeaway: The US Government should use the same standards of management performance that are required in private industry. This article examines historical data to benchmark our Government’s current performance using data from a wide range of sources. Based on this article’s data it is clear that the current Government did not deliver on its brand (Bush White House) promise to prevent recession, shrink government spending or create an environment for sustainable lower taxes. It is also clear that the Government did not put in place the right processes (regulations) to ensure its management system would work efficiently and in the interest of its stakeholders (voters, world-community, environment). If this was a business the board of directors (voters) would evaluate the data and hold the managers (Bush Administration) accountable for their poor performance. Let’s base our voting decisions on data and not emotion. Let’s seek out the most reliable data and use historical benchmarks, trends, and facts to base our decisions. And when our managers of our great nation fail to perform according to plan, let’s hold them responsible for their economic mismanagement and incompetence, which is what we would expect in any competitive organization.
Almost exactly eight years ago on Sept. 29, 2000, while campaigning for President, Gov. Bush stated his sweeping tax cut of $1.3 trillion over 10 years was, in fact, ''an insurance policy against an economic slowdown or a recession.'' Indeed President George W. Bush ran in 2000 on the promise to shrink government spending and cut taxes. He warned that too much new government spending could cripple the economy. Bush belittled sitting vice president Gore for proposing larger government spending on education, health care, Medicare and the environment as having, ''cast his lot with the old Democratic Party'' in proposing a new level of federal spending and regulation, which Gov. Bush said would endanger the country's current prosperity. In his first address to congress he lobbied for the largest tax cut in history, which later passed, stated, "American taxpayers have been overcharged, and on their behalf I am here to ask for a refund”. Did large tax cuts benefitting the richest Americans, less regulation and a pledge to shrink ‘Big Government’ work? Here’s the data-
Today Sept. 21, 2008, President Bush is requesting the largest Government bailout in 80 years, which will require a Congressional act to raise the United States national debt limit from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion! This represents the largest corporate welfare package in history, and does not hold accountable the people, firms or processes responsible for poor business decisions. Imagine if a free-market IT business could make bad bets on customers, collect large salaries and bonuses and then when their investments didn’t deliver ROI, the government would offer to pay out! Imagine an IT executive making enormous salary and bonuses for poor business management and not being held accountable. That is the reality for the recipients of the $700 billion “Bailout Plan”.
In 2004 the late libertarian commentator Harry Browne used DATA from US Gov Statistics and Economic Indicators, which identified that Bush grew non-military Government spending by 3.5% a year by 2004, compared to the historic President who grew non-military government spending the least per year at an average of 1.5%, Bill Clinton. In real terms, using Gov. Data and not rhetoric, means that by 2004 Bush was increasing non-military spending at twice the rate as Bill Clinton.
Even former Republican economist Alan Greenspan criticizes Bush for growing government spending, despite having a Republican Congress in power for over 80% of his presidency. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. In his recent book, conservative Greenspan praises Clinton for collecting relevant information, seeing the big picture and trying to use the tax surplus to fund Social Security into the future.
In a 2000 campaign speech Gov. Bush criticized Gore, “His promises throw the budget out of balance. He offers a big federal spending program to every -- to nearly every -- single voting bloc in America. He expands entitlements without reforms to sustain them”. In 2008, the USA has the largest budget and trade gap ever, enormous expenditures for the expensive Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and an unfunded Social Security system with millions of aging Americans set to retire. Today the Bush Administration’s short three page (budget ‘unbalancing’) plan asks for $700 billion of tax payers money to compensate large financial firms for poor investments, and does not address the home-owners who are losing their homes. Inronically Bush's Bail Out Plan will leave generations of Americans with an enormous debt that can only be paid for in higher taxes. Bush offered, "The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. ... Over time, we're going to get a lot of the money back." Bush failed to set a specific date on when ‘we’ will get the money back, and did not specify what will be done to make the money, or how the money will be given back. Back to Bush’s original campaign address in 2000, 'Americans are being overcharged', but sadly the Bush team has not produced an economic system to deliver a refund. The House of Representative’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, stated, "We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington." That last statement is something I can agree with.
Today Sept. 21, 2008, President Bush is requesting the largest Government bailout in 80 years, which will require a Congressional act to raise the United States national debt limit from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion! This represents the largest corporate welfare package in history, and does not hold accountable the people, firms or processes responsible for poor business decisions. Imagine if a free-market IT business could make bad bets on customers, collect large salaries and bonuses and then when their investments didn’t deliver ROI, the government would offer to pay out! Imagine an IT executive making enormous salary and bonuses for poor business management and not being held accountable. That is the reality for the recipients of the $700 billion “Bailout Plan”.
In 2004 the late libertarian commentator Harry Browne used DATA from US Gov Statistics and Economic Indicators, which identified that Bush grew non-military Government spending by 3.5% a year by 2004, compared to the historic President who grew non-military government spending the least per year at an average of 1.5%, Bill Clinton. In real terms, using Gov. Data and not rhetoric, means that by 2004 Bush was increasing non-military spending at twice the rate as Bill Clinton.
Even former Republican economist Alan Greenspan criticizes Bush for growing government spending, despite having a Republican Congress in power for over 80% of his presidency. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. In his recent book, conservative Greenspan praises Clinton for collecting relevant information, seeing the big picture and trying to use the tax surplus to fund Social Security into the future.
In a 2000 campaign speech Gov. Bush criticized Gore, “His promises throw the budget out of balance. He offers a big federal spending program to every -- to nearly every -- single voting bloc in America. He expands entitlements without reforms to sustain them”. In 2008, the USA has the largest budget and trade gap ever, enormous expenditures for the expensive Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and an unfunded Social Security system with millions of aging Americans set to retire. Today the Bush Administration’s short three page (budget ‘unbalancing’) plan asks for $700 billion of tax payers money to compensate large financial firms for poor investments, and does not address the home-owners who are losing their homes. Inronically Bush's Bail Out Plan will leave generations of Americans with an enormous debt that can only be paid for in higher taxes. Bush offered, "The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. ... Over time, we're going to get a lot of the money back." Bush failed to set a specific date on when ‘we’ will get the money back, and did not specify what will be done to make the money, or how the money will be given back. Back to Bush’s original campaign address in 2000, 'Americans are being overcharged', but sadly the Bush team has not produced an economic system to deliver a refund. The House of Representative’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, stated, "We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington." That last statement is something I can agree with.
Posts
