Bush economic team under fire, hands new ammo to Democrats

[Judi Lynn]

Bush economic team under fire, hands new ammo to Democrats

TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, February 18, 2004

(02-18) 23:26 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

President Bush touts his economic stewardship as a top re-election asset, yet offhand remarks and mixed signals by leading members of his economic team are proving politically embarrassing and handing fresh ammunition to Democrats.

The White House found itself in the awkward position Wednesday of backing away from its earlier prediction that the economy would add 2.6 million new jobs this year.

White House officials already were reeling from the assertion of N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, that "outsourcing" American jobs overseas was good for the U.S. economy in the long run. Mankiw later apologized and said he had been misunderstood.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan blamed the optimistic jobs projection on bureaucratic "number crunchers."
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/18/politics0214EST0433.DTL

[pinniped]

1. Let's play the, "Who are we gonna blame today game".

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan blamed the optimistic jobs projection on bureaucratic "number crunchers.""

[radfringe]

2. not a statitician

to paraphrase an old cliche - bush* has more excuses than Carter has peanuts...

the latest excuse is that bush* is not a statitician

remember the scandals over Enron, Worldcom etc? remember the excuse the CEO's used regarding their companies financial reports? remember that the SEC now requires CEO's to sign off on those financial reports as a method to hold CEO's responsible and accountable?

The report released by Council of Economic Advisers has bush*'s signature on it.

This is the man that GOPer's tout as being a CEO - the first MBA pResident. The man they are now pushing as a leader...

Did bush* even read the report before signing? Did he understand what the report said? Did he ask any questions before signing off on the report? Was he engaged at all regarding the report?

whether or not the numbers were a result of bureaucratic "number crunchers" or whether or not bush* is a statitician doesn't make any difference - bush* signed off on the report. This makes him responsible and accountable for the report.

[Journeyman]

5. Very good, radfringe. . .

let's put Smirk's toesies to the fire and hold him responsible for being our "CEO" since he so obviously can't manage as a "President".

[Kinkistyle]

8. I wonder if that would go over with banks, lenders, etc...

Hey, look I meant to pay off the loan, but come on - I'm not a statistician!

[RoadRunner]

14. Another thing

Bush has an MBA from Harvard. Every MBA program requires competency in statistics. You either have to take a course in stat or test out. Guess he was AWOL from that too.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. "The Buck Stops. . .

. . .over there somewhere!" so sayeth Li'l Georgie.

Besides, it's not any revelation that Junior is not a statistician. It's obvious he's dumb as a post. But, like you said, he signed it. If he signed something he didn't understand, he's an idiot. If he did understand what he's signing, but didn't understand how they got the numbers, he's an idiot. If he signed it but didn't understand any of it, he's an idiot.

There are your choices, boys and girls. A, B, or C?
The Professor

[Born Free]

3. There is a pattern

Democrats need to point out the pattern of behavior here, in all the important matters that affect Americans this administration misleads, distorts and exaggerates.

[Lexingtonian]

4. it's a little more intricate

The Administration lies in ways that get things favorable to them quoted in headlines that their intended audience reads.

They retract it in ways that get mentioned in small print.

Voila, the useful idiots they need only catch the first version. Their cynical supporters tend not to care as long as it doesn't affect them personally.

[izzie]

7. Govt can not be run like a business and the GOP do not understand that.

Business is run from the top down and things done and said as the 'ruler' states and govt. is run from the bottom up, as the 'voters' say. If I have heard it once I have heard it 10,000 times that the govt. should be run like a business. It can not work that way in a country with our type of govt.

[Lexingtonian]

9. Sure it can, but only for short periods of time

Large scale private business is predicated on exploiting/diminishing the collective wealth and common good for private gain. Good government is about increasing one, two, or all three of these to where they form a stable equilibrium. In large parts of the country the definition of good government has, however, often in the absence of possibility of the genuine article, been perverted in the public mind to mean 'screw the common good for OUR group's private gain'.

But sometimes there are serious national problems that require some serious destruction of wealth and shifting around of power and wealth to a few hands. E.g. wars, be they military or economic kinds or certain kinds of domestic social strife. Not that wise people really prefer this way of doing things, but sometimes things have to move fast and thus be taken out of the hands of the slow, error-filled but selfcorrecting, methods of committee-based public interest government.

Of course, the opportunity for large scale theft in this is why the dolt presently in office tries to be a 'war president' in the absence of a materially competent enemy.

[74dodgedart]

11. It doesn't matter, because Bush can't run a business either.

All his companies go Ar Busto

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

18. Push the message

That this is the 'Blame Other People' President. We should compile a list of the issues that he blamed other people instead of admitting responsibility. Give the people a choice, is the President irresponsible (always blames other people for everything) or incompetent (screws everything up himself)?

[Dr Fate]

6. I just sadly shake my head and think...

"sighhh- they are lying to us...AGAIN..."

[BruinAlum]

10. Another fumble for the Bush team. Let's keep approval ratings dropping

[74dodgedart]

12. The scary thing is...

They had to know how bad it would look to side step the prediction,
so does that mean they think the real number is going to be considerably worse ?

They don't even believe their own spin anymore.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. You can tell Bush doesn't believe in evolution

because he's using a weird "reverse natural selection". Any member of his team who comes up with the true economic answer gets fired:

"Bush fired his first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, in December 2002 after O'Neill questioned the need for a fresh round of tax cuts.

Lawrence Lindsey was forced out at the same time as director of the president's National Economic Council after suggesting that a war with Iraq could cost $100 billion to $200 billion -- which turned out to be close to the mark."

At this rate, Bush won't have anyone with a higher IQ than him left by Nov 2004.

[xchrom]

15. the buck never stops at this white house.

you'd think the american would develop an allergy to repukes -- they can't take responsibility for not one fuck up they create.

[Bandit]

16. Why aren't they gunna add 2.6 million jobs? ~ Clinton added more than

that every year for eight straight years and these guys keep telling us they are so much better at economics that Clinton was.

[central scrutinizer]

17. I'm sick of this BS reporting

The reporter has a comfortable job so he writes about the political ramifications of the report - how the two sides will try to jockey for position. Everything is viewed through a political lens. That is the Karl Rove modus operandi and I am sick of it. Unemployment and lost jobs is not about numbers and projections - it is about hunger and homelessness. Why not do some real reporting on the millions of people who have lost their jobs and how they are trying to feed their children. Oh, but that would be class warfare and we must never do that.

[Robin Hood]

20. How can you misunderstand this statement?

"outsourcing" American jobs overseas was good for the U.S. economy in the long run".

Don't bullshit a bullshitter.