Thomas Friedman (The New York Times): Budgets of Mass Destruction

[Jack Rabbit]

Form The New York Times
Dated Sunday February 1

Budgets of Mass Destruction
By Thomas Friedman

t should be clear to all by now that what we have in the Bush team is a faith-based administration. It launched a faith-based war in Iraq, on the basis of faith-based intelligence, with a faith-based plan for Iraqi reconstruction, supported by faith-based tax cuts to generate faith-based revenues. This group believes that what matters in politics and economics are conviction and will — not facts, social science or history.
Personally, I don't believe the Bush team will pay a long-term political price for its faith-based intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Too many Americans, including me, believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W.M.D. intel was wrong.
The Bush team's real vulnerability is its B.M.D. — Budgets of Mass Destruction, which have recklessly imperiled the nation's future, with crazy tax-cutting and out-of-control spending. The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit is expected to total some $2.4 trillion over the next decade — almost $1 trillion more than the prediction of just five months ago. That is a failure of intelligence and common sense that threatens to make us all insecure — and people also feel that in their guts.
As Peter Peterson, the former Nixon commerce secretary and a longtime courageous advocate of fiscal responsibility, puts it in "Running on Empty," his forthcoming book: "In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan galvanized the American electorate with that famous riff: `I want to ask every American: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?' Perhaps some future-oriented presidential candidate should rephrase this line as follows: `I want to ask every American, young people especially: Is your future better off now than it was four years ago — now that you are saddled with these large new liabilities and the higher taxes that must eventually accompany them?' "

Read more.

As is often the case, Friedman is partly right and partly wrong. The fact is that the absence of WMDs do matter. Even if removing Saddam was the right thing, it was done in the worst way possible. That is something Friedman still does not grasp. Things will continue to go wrong for the Bushies in Iraq and Americans will resent the lies -- and they were lies, not intelligence failures -- that got us into the war.

However, Friedman is right about the Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and the opportunities it provides the Democrats. One does not need to be a liberal economist to know that Bush's tax cuts are a disaster for which today's young people will be paying the rest of their lives.

Therefore, Bush should be hit and hit hard on both fronts.

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Will Tommy sing a different song if his job is outsourced to India?

Tommy, so predictible, so biased, so pompous as usual...

[fabius]

2. I agree, he's half right.

Two killer issues: the war (no WMD's) and the deficits. We need to hammer these relentlessly.

[indepat]

4. And maybe throw in mass destruction of the environment as the third leg

linchpin?

[Beetwasher]

3. Gotta Love This Guy, NOT!

"Personally, I don't believe the Bush team will pay a long-term political price for its faith-based intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Too many Americans, including me, believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W.M.D. intel was wrong."

Still making excuses you little twit. Whoops! No biggie about the lies to start a war and get thousands killed for no forseeable benefit or reason (well except the BFEE's benefit of course), but my GUT tells me it was good! Someone remind me to send him a bottle of Pepto, I think this dick has indigestion...

[SquireJons]

5. Friedman is a Zionist First

And rational second, sometimes... if Israel is not involved in any way. How on earth can he agree that breaking international law, undermining the authority of the U.N., turning our back on all of our hard won allies, turning our back on the emerging moderates in the Middle East (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran come to mind), undermining NATO, and backing a brutish government in Israel is the 'right thing to do.'? Oh, that's right, were talking about the 'Jewish Homeland' here. If he wrote for an Israeli newspaper (which the NY Times is often seen to be), he might make more sense.

I think his real agenda is to steer Democratic rhetoric away from questioning our middle east policies. I used to like him, but he makes me sick now. With friends like him, we might as well all get our arms tattooed now and head for the nearest cattle car.

[KG]

6. Thomas Friedman - delusional moron.

[54anickel]

7. This King fellow seems to think Shrub has figured out Utopia

Wonder how many people that don't fear loosing their jobs share this guys view.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/comment/story.jsp?story=486877

snip>
"Good" deflation is a little less familiar, but perfectly coherent nevertheless. "Good" deflation is likely to occur where prices persistently fall more quickly than wages, thereby ensuring that "real" wages rise. On the whole, people get steadily richer. Even those who have debts may not be any worse off: although the real level of the debt may be rising as prices fall, this need not be a problem so long as real wages are rising quickly enough to ensure that the debt/income ratio does not start to pick up.

So what could trigger "good" deflation? From an individual country's point of view, the most obvious mechanism is via a steady improvement in the terms of trade delivered through persistent declines in import prices. Why should import prices decline? One obviously relevant way is through outsourcing and offshoring. If greater capital mobility ensures that resources around the world are allocated more efficiently, the global economy should move closer and closer to the theoretical production frontier, potentially making at least some people better off without having to make anyone else worse off. This is very much a "supply-led" story.

snip>
For the population at large, though, "good" deflation could be a blessing. Just think of all those people fast approaching retirement age, having to get used to the idea of living on fixed nominal incomes. "Good" deflation would suddenly mean that these fixed nominal incomes would be able to rise in "real" terms. Deflation isn't always bad and, in this topsy-turvy world, price stability may not always be so good.

[Sticky]

8. I have a problem with the word 'removed'

Too many Americans, including me, believe in their guts that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even if the W.M.D. intel was wrong.>>


Saddam is still there!....He is living and breathing and fading in a cell somewhere, his health and welfare assured for now.

What has been removed is the life of 525 Americans and for Freidman not to recognize that is what I would call unpatriotic.

The President of the United States lied - where is the outrage?

[dennis4868]

9. It does not matter....

if the war was still the right thing to do because we got a bad guy out of office...this is for 2 reasons:

1. Bush and Cheney lied to congress which is a federal offense and a "high crime and misdemeanor."

2. A preventative war is an illegal war accordint to internationa law....if anyone still cares about international law anymore...I do!

[thebigidea]

10. what a clown. sorry, no PASS on WMD, Tom.