re: What is your outlook on the economy?

quote:

---

Well first, I assume you mean 2005-07, which were years of nearly complete gridlock on Capitol Hill when it took serious logrolling to even continue war funding. But that's not the main point.

---

Shouldn't have included '04 due to the election year, and I also should've been more clear when I said real entitlement reform. Everything you said about Bush is very true, and admittedly I let emotions take over when thinking about this one (very rarely happens since I'm dead inside and stuff). Bush did do more than any other President regarding entitlement reform, but even you have to admit the end product was entirely on the margin. Also true that this was primarily not his fault, as his own party were the real ones to blame for more not getting done (didn't 9 Dems have to cross for MMA to pass because 10 Pubs voted against it or something like that?). I chose '05 because no first term President could ever make this happen. It would have to be a samuri falling on the sword move.

I'm referring primarily to the 2005 DRA, and I'm going to try and do as best I can with this explanation because I am not seasoned in applicable policy and I lost my notes from this meeting years ago . It's not very well known, but the original drafts and conversations on this bill would have truly made a real impact at the heart of deficit reduction. The end result of the bill was nothing more than some hot button changes to penalty periods with nursing homes, weak caps on eligibility to Medicaid funded nursing home coverage, forced some applicants to spend before applying for assistance, and then a myriad of several accounting and qualification changes. I actually wasn't even aware of this until I was in a conference room and Glenn Hubbard was speaking fairly candidly, but apparently the original drafts of this had several cuts to eligibility that would put back of the napkin absolute nominal cuts in the trillions over the decade. I'm not referring to the accounting treatments the CBO uses assuming 4.5% GDP growth for calculating potential tax receipts somehow spawned from signed acts like cabbage patch kids. I mean real cuts. Extensive eligibility requirements, much more mandatory personal expensing, real cold-hearted shite that is actually needed to make a true dent here. The story is George didn't even try to take it to bring this up with his constituents before watering it down first.

Yes, I know this was likely the only possible and smart move by Bush. Yes, I know Hubbard left the WH staff in '03 so this could be very convoluted from what actually happened. Yes, I know there is less than a 5% chance it would've even gotten to the floor. Yes, I know I'm being irrational here. But frick man, this really was our only shot during our lifetime. I know I'm here, but he could've tried to force the bill through as much as he could early in '05 and let himself be the scapegoat while the GOP Congress spent the next 3 years distancing themselves politically from him. Yes, I know that would've nuked any chance of him getting anything done the rest of his presidency. Yes, I know it would've in all likelihood nuked the GOP (even though 20/20 hindsight they were fricked anyway the next couple election cycles). Yes, I know my irrationality is concerning right now. But you and I both know we won't have a real shot at making real dents here the rest of our lifetimes. Somebody will have to be the scapegoat, whether it be a politician or the population. Yes, I know this is completely unfair to blame Bush. But unfortunately now we will have an endless series of infected Band-Aids over the years to reactively deal with entitlements as issues chronically rise rather than a true surgical procedure to proactively make a real fix.

frick it, markets closed, I'm going to drink. Why don't you come to the MT anymore Fenton?

[neglected needy girl voice]
You never debate Japanese monetary policy with me anymore...
[/neglected needy girl voice]