Latest news with #GeorgeW.Bush
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Out-of-Control Debt Is Not a Bug. To the GOP, It's a Feature.
Republicans are so gravely concerned about the national debt, right? After all, they're the party of prudence and fiscal responsibility. They're the grown-ups in the room, the ones who tap the brakes while those crazy, irresponsible Democrats keep pumping the accelerator, spending like drunken sailors on shore leave in Macau. So, a question for you. Of all the non-wartime presidents going back to 1900, who are the top five in terms of adding to the national debt? First, I stipulate 'non-wartime presidents' because financing a war, by definition, means adding massively to the debt. During wartime, everybody understands this. In this sense Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt are the debt kings. They each increased the national debt by a staggering percentage—nearly 800 percent in both cases. But the former helped win World War I, aiding the cause of democracy and making the United States a global power for the first time, and the latter defeated fascism. Especially in the second case, it was worth every penny. After them, who's next, do you suppose? Maybe LBJ, with all that Great Society money sluicing through those shambolic, on-the-take community organizations? Jimmy Carter, the first modern president to leave us with what seemed at the time like a gaping deficit? The answer is: No and no. The top five modern presidents in terms of percentage added to the national debt are, in order: Ronald Reagan; George W. Bush; Barack Obama; George H.W. Bush; and Donald Trump, term one. That's right. Four of the top five were Republicans. And though I know some would not agree, I'd put an asterisk next to Obama's name. He took office during the heat of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, which happened under George W. Bush's watch, and with the private-sector economy in freefall and credit drying up, he had little choice at the time but to pump money into the economy. (And one of the biggest knocks on Barack is that he didn't go bigger. He took a lot of stick for the slowness of the recovery for the sake of not adding more to the debt.) But generally speaking, it's been Republican presidents who've piled up the debt. And it's not very close. Reagan's percentage was 160.8; Dubya's was 72.6. Obama's was 64.4, Bush Sr.'s 42.3 and Trump's 39.2 (those last two, remember, in just four years, not eight). So, golly—how can it be that the party of fiscal prudence is the party that runs up the debt? It's not a coincidence, folks. The debt is the amount of money the government has to borrow to cover its expenses. Said expenses are incurred, of course, when the government spends more than it takes in. Conservatives like to blame excessive spending, and it does no one a disservice to say that at times, they're onto something. But here's an interesting point for us to chew on. In the 34 years after 1946 (that is, after World War II), the national debt went from 106 percent of GDP to just 25 percent. The government was spending like crazy in those years: constructing a vast national security state, building Interstate highways, creating Medicare and Medicaid, expanding the welfare state in myriad other ways. And yet, the debt remained under control. What changed after 1980? Massive tax cutting is what changed. In the 1970s, the right cooked up the lie that cutting taxes would actually increase revenues. Since this is what rich people in the donor class were aching to hear, it was really, really popular. But guess what? It didn't pan out that way. The 1981 tax cuts cost the treasury $445 billion over the next four years (see this 2006 study; go down to page 16, line nine, and add up the first four numbers). The tax cuts blew a huge hole in the deficit, and that's when the government started borrowing to beat the band. The same thing happened under Dubya. And now here we sit, a generation later, with the GOP House having passed their big, beautiful bill that will add a whopping $3.8 trillion to the current national debt of $36 trillion. Astonishingly, House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed on Meet the Press Sunday that the bill is 'not going to add to the debt.' This is an unusual lie even by his standards. The number is real, and $3.8 trillion is the low estimate. How can the party of fiscal responsibility do such a thing, you may ask? We answer this question by asking another one. What are the potential impacts of excessive debt? Here's a list from the fiscally hawkish Peterson Institute of Top 10 reasons why the national debt matters. Some are more persuasive than others, but for our purposes, reasons three and six in particular caught my eye: 'Higher interest costs could crowd out important public investments that can fuel economic growth — priority areas such as education, research & development, and infrastructure.' 'The unsustainable fiscal path threatens the safety net and the most vulnerable in American society. If the government does not have sufficient resources, essential programs like Medicaid and Social Security could be put in jeopardy.' You following me? Republicans want these crises. Crowd out public investments? Put essential safety net programs at risk? You and I might call these potential calamities. Republicans call them an essential part of the platform. So a large debt, and big yearly budget deficits, are for Republicans a feature, not a bug. They're the best arguments Republicans have for attacking Democrats over excessive spending. Which, by the way, is kind of funny in and of itself, because far and away the biggest spender on non-defense discretionary items of the last 20 years? Donald Trump (see Figure 4). That was pandemic-related, so it was understandable. But the point remains that for the better part now of 50 years, Republicans talk one game and play another. Democrats are not of course blameless here. First of all, too many of them, in the 1980s and the early 2000s (though not in 2017), went along with these huge tax cuts. Second, one lesson they need to ponder from the Biden years is where to draw the line on spending. The Biden spending bills didn't cause inflation, but they did contribute to it. As Democrats draw up their plans to reconnect with working-class voters, they need to keep in mind that sometimes, there are other ways to respond to social ills than by creating a big new government program. But at least they're trying to address social ills—all while being the more fiscally responsible party, and the party that, as I've written several times, has been far better for the economy in recent history. Republicans want social ills—they keep people angry at government. And once the nation is reeling, Republicans are less interested in solving them than using them as a political bludgeon against Democrats. Because who cares? Like Joni Ernst says, we're all gonna die anyway.
Yomiuri Shimbun
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yomiuri Shimbun
U.S. Ex-President Bush Draws Inspiration in Latest Paintings
AP A visitor looks at an exhibit of paintings by former U.S. President George W. Bush on display at the George W. Bush Presidential Museum on May 15 in Dallas. DALLAS (AP) — Former U.S. President George W. Bush didn't need to look too far for inspiration for his newest works of art. The 78-year-old has brushed portraits of world leaders and people who immigrated to the U.S. But his newest collection draws on scenes much closer to home: his presidential library in Dallas. The exhibit opened May 15 at the George W. Bush Presidential Center on the campus of Southern Methodist University. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush moved to Dallas after he left the White House in 2009, and he took up oil painting a few years later. The 35 new works are an ode not only to life at the center but also to SMU. The exhibit called 'A Shining City on the Hilltop' is both a nod to SMU's nickname — The Hilltop — and former President Ronald Reagan's famous use of the phrase 'shining city upon a hill' to refer to America, said Teresa Lenling, director of the presidential museum. AP Teresa Lenling, Director of the George W. Bush Presidential Museum, speaks during an interview about an exhibit featuring paintings by the former president. 'This features not just the places around the SMU campus but it really takes a look at the people that are the heart of this campus and the community,' said Lenling, adding that Bush composed the paintings from photos taken around the center and campus. One of the paintings comes from the center's opening in 2013, when then President Barack Obama and all of the still-living former presidents, including Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, posed in front of the new building. Devon Yarbrough, who works at the center, said she was 'very surprised' but pleased to spot herself in one of the paintings. She's depicted reading a book on her lunch break while sitting on a bench under a tree in the center's 6-hectare park. This is the fifth exhibit of George W. Bush's art to be featured at the center. His first exhibit was a collection of portraits of world leaders including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Dalai Lama. He's also done a collection of paintings of military veterans, which were featured in his book 'Portraits of Courage,' and painted portraits of people who immigrated to the U.S., which are compiled in his book 'Out of Many, One.' The exhibit is on display through Oct. 19.
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Transportation Department to end affirmative action in contracts
The Transportation department said in a court filing that it agreed the "program's use of race- and sex-based presumptions is unconstitutional." The department previously defended the policy as seeking to remedy past discrimination but said it has reevaluated its position in light of factors including the Supreme Court's decision in 2023 in an affirmative action case. U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove in Frankfort, Kentucky, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, said the federal government cannot classify people in ways that violate the principles of equal protection in the U.S. Constitution. More: DEI explained: What is DEI and why is it so divisive? What you need to know. He relied in part on a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that effectively prohibited affirmative action policies long used in college admissions to raise the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority students on American campuses. More: Two men fought for jobs in a river-town mill. 50 years later, the nation is still divided. The program was reauthorized in 2021 through then Democratic President Joe Biden's signature Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which set aside more than $37 billion for that purpose.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge strikes down Trump executive order targeting law firm, extending his losing streak
As last week came to an end, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush blocked one of Donald Trump's executive orders targeting a law firm. As this week gets underway, as Reuters reported, a different federal judge appointed by the same Republican president went even further. A judge in Washington on Tuesday struck down an executive order targeting law firm WilmerHale, marking the third ruling to overwhelmingly reject President Donald Trump's efforts to punish firms he perceives as enemies of his administration. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said Trump's order retaliated against the firm in violation of U.S. constitutional protections for free speech and due process. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting,' Judge Richard Leon wrote. 'The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. 'I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional.' Stepping back, only a handful of law firms fought back against the White House — most of the president's targets tried to appease the president — but those that have resisted are on quite a winning streak. One of the first firms to be targeted, Perkins Coie, filed suit against Trump rather than giving in, and soon after, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell temporarily blocked the president's policy, saying in reference to the executive order, 'It sends little chills down my spine.' The judge added, 'I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through.' It was the first in a series of related setbacks for the White House. Around the same time, Jenner & Block was targeted; it also sought a temporary order blocking Trump's attack, and it also succeeded. Susman Godfrey scored a similar victory, and now WilmerHale has persuaded a judge that Trump's EO deserved to be rejected entirely. In other words, four of the targeted firms fought back rather than give in, and all four have — at least for now — prevailed, stopping Trump's gambit in its tracks. As for the firms that chose appeasement, it's hard not to wonder how many regret their decisions. I'm not privy to their internal deliberations, of course, but many likely made a cost-benefit analysis: Concerned about losing lucrative clients, they probably decided it'd be cheaper simply to give in. So they entered into negotiations with the White House — or, more accurately, Trump's highly controversial and recently indicted personal attorney, who's reportedly helping take the lead on these deals — and committed to nearly $1 billion in free legal services to make the president happy. Given the available evidence, fighting back didn't just help some of Trump's targets preserve their reputations, it also seems vastly cheaper. It also likely would've saved some of these firms considerable and avoidable conflicts. The New York Times reported last week that four of the top partners at Paul Weiss — one of the legal giants that gave in to the White House — announced that they are leaving to create their own law firm. This came on the heels of a Wall Street Journal report that said another firm in the same position, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, is finding that its deal with Trump 'is backfiring,' with the agreement 'pushing more lawyers to leave, people familiar with the matter said, spurred by anger that the firm capitulated to Trump instead of fighting back against an administration campaign that many in the industry believe to be unconstitutional.' Of course, for firms that didn't choose to placate the president, it's worth noting that it's not too late for them to reverse course, end their deals with Trump and join with the firms that keep winning in court. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
US judge blocks Trump order against law firm WilmerHale
By Mike Scarcella (Reuters) -A judge in Washington on Tuesday struck down an executive order targeting law firm WilmerHale, marking the third ruling to overwhelmingly reject President Donald Trump's efforts to punish firms he perceives as enemies of his administration. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said Trump's order retaliated against the firm in violation of U.S. constitutional protections for free speech and due process. WilmerHale is the former home of Robert Mueller, the Republican-appointed special counsel who led a probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and Trump campaign ties to Moscow. Trump has derided the investigation as a political "witch hunt." Leon barred federal agencies from enforcing the March 27 executive order against WilmerHale, a 1,100-lawyer firm with offices in Washington, D.C. and across the country. WilmerHale was among four law firms that sued the administration over Trump's orders seeking to bar their attorneys from federal buildings and to strip their clients of U.S. federal government contracts. Trump accused the firms of "weaponizing" the justice system against him and his allies. WilmerHale called Trump's order 'flagrantly' unconstitutional, arguing it violated its rights to speech, due process and equal protection under the law. The firm in its lawsuit was represented by prominent conservative lawyer Paul Clement, who was the U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush presidency. In a related lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on May 2 overturned Trump's executive order against law firm Perkins Coie, ruling that "settling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President." On May 23, U.S. District Judge John Bates in D.C. issued a similar ruling that struck down Trump's order against Jenner & Block. A fourth judge is weighing whether to overturn an executive order that targeted Susman Godfrey. The U.S. Justice Department has defended Trump's orders in court, arguing in each case that Trump was lawfully exercising his presidential power and discretion. The Justice Department can appeal Leon's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nine law firms, including Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins; Skadden Arps; and Willkie Farr, reached deals with Trump that averted punitive actions, pledging a combined total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services to advance causes he supports. Trump's targeting of firms has drawn condemnation from many within the legal industry. Some have criticized the firms that reached agreements as capitulating to presidential coercion.
