|
When Bush says he is living by principles, I think 'total self indulgence' is the only 'principle' he really has. My previous essay sums it up:
We Know Where He Stands In his acceptance speech President Bush said: "In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we do not agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand." As is typical when Bush speaks, none of that is true. In the first place I knew he was a liar before he ever became President. In the second place, from the polls, it appears that most of my fellow Americans are unaware of this as over 50% say they "trust" him. So I already knew him, and apparently many Americans still don't. In the third place, he does not know me. I know many kinds of people. I have rich friends and relatives. I have conservative Republican and fundamentalist Christian friends. I have friends who have drug problems, mental problems, work, money, and relationship problems. Does Bush have any friends that he lent $50 to so their lights would not be shut off? Does he have working class or left-wing friends? I would venture to say that he knows next to nothing about people like me. The idea that George W. Bush would stoop to going into a McDonalds (like Clinton), or a Wendys (like Edwards), much less a Wal-mart, even to buy a DVD of The Passion, is not a story that I have heard in the last four years. The idea that he cares about the troubles and struggles of the bottom half, much less the bottom 20% is unbelievable. To his claim that he knows me, I would quote Bender from The Breakfast Club: "Don't you ever talk about my friends! You don't know any of my friends! You don't look at any of my friends, and you certainly wouldn't condescend to speak to any of my friends!" However, he does claim to care about the jobless, which gives the lie to his claim that we know where he stands. He said: "To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation, and making tax relief permanent." So he says he cares about people who do not have jobs. That is where he claims to stand, on their side. His plan to help them - permanent tax cuts for rich people, especially those with dividend income. He pays lip service to our troubles and uses that as an excuse to give rich people, like himself coincidentally, wads of cash. He said: "The American people deserve and our economic future demands a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code." So he claims to care about the "American people". I am willing to bet my entire life savings that his "reform" of the federal tax code will be a windfall for rich people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Any takers? Put your $50,000 where your faith is. In May of this year, House Republicans passed a bill creating $6.9 billion in tax cuts. Who gets those tax cuts? Families earning between $110,000 and $300,000 who are raising children. House Republicans called that the "middle class" in spite of the fact that in 2001, 80% of all households made less than $83,500, and only 5% made more than $151,000. Bush's tax cuts were like that, targeted to the upper incomes, although he has never admitted it. He also said he was going to be a uniter in his first term, and yet the tax cuts of 2003 passed the Senate 51-50. His promise of a "bipartisan effort" is another lie. For over four years Bush has lied and lied and lied about the way his tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. He has lied about numbers which any honest accountant can verify. As a mathematician and an economist, I am outraged by his dishonesty and flabbergasted at his audacity. The audacity to spend over four years lying and then to say "we may disagree, but at least I am a straight talker". In a sense, however, he is right. Those of us who pay attention do know where he stands, on the side of the rich, the powerful, the intolerant, the unthinking, the dogmatic, and pragmatically, on the side of untruth. I know that, however, not by believing what he says, but by watching what he does.
|