Presidential "pass it on": A Historical Retrospective

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_future_presidents_2

I recently saw this article (or is it an op-ed piece? - it's hard to tell anymore) critical of President Bush for not solving problems but "passing them on" to his successor. Given this article on the Bush Administration a longer term retrospective is helpful in providing a historical perspective and context.

TRUMAN:

Truman got us embroiled in the Korean civil war which became unwinnable when our push north triggered the Chinese to enter the conflict. Truman passed it on to his successor, President Eisenhower. President Eisenhower had to negotiate a truce that allowed an end to the active hostilities, although we have something like 30,000 troops in South Korea to this day. More than 50,000 American troops were killed and more than 100,000 were wounded.

JOHNSON:

Johnson dramatically escalated our role in Vietnam resulting in the death of 58,000 American soldiers and 350,000 American casualties. In total more than 5 million were killed in North and South Viet Nam with more than 4 million of these being civilians. President Johnson and McNamara illegally expanded the war into neighboring countries Laos and Cambodia.

Johnson was so devastated by his mess that he declined to run for a second term and passed on the quagmire to President Nixon. The loss of public support and key military setbacks passed on by Johnson meant that Nixon had no choice but to wind down our involvement and withdraw in disgrace from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon (now Ho Chi Min City). Whether the Vietnam War accomplished anything is still being debated to this day.

CARTER:

Carter projected a weak and inept America to the world. When the Iranians seized the American hostages Carter’s only answer other than locking himself in the White House (he bizarrely refused to leave the White House and Rose Garden until the hostages were released) was to send a rescue team on a helicopter that had been patched together with salvaged parts. It crashed. The hostages were not released until Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Apparently Reagan’s “peace through strength” message was not lost on the Iranians.

President Carter passed on to Reagan a military that had been gutted and an economy that had been wrecked. We had the highest rate of inflation and highest interest rates of the last century. You could actually get a CD with an 18% interest rate. Reagan cut taxes to get the economy moving, which it did, got interest rates down, rebuilt the military, and brought down the Soviet Union and Iron Curtin (not bad for 8 years work).

CLINTON:

Clinton could not recognize that we were already at war with Islamic extremists and refused to respond decisively. President Clinton passed on an emboldened Al Qaeda, a revitalized Palestinian terrorist organization (President Clinton was instrumental in restoring Arafat to prominance, one of the most brutal terrorists of the last 40 years), a recession and a stock market crash to his successor. President Bush has had to clean up the mess.

BUSH:

It seems like the Republican successors are always cleaning up the Democratic President's messes. President Bush will pass on to his successor an economy that is stronger, an military that is stronger, a country that is safer than President Clinton passed on to him.

Economy:

Bush had to act aggressively to attack the recession passed on by Clinton. Bush cut income taxes to stimulate consumption (70%) of the economy) and cut capital gains taxes to stimulate investment and job creation. The result has been an economy that recovered, surged and is now headed toward a sustainable soft landing. The tax cuts have resulted in exploding federal tax revenue, translating to very low deficits as a percent of GDP. Unemployment is at an all time low.

The Democrats are proposing taxes and trade protectionism that will devastate the slowing economy if they are successful. More than 1,000 economists recently signed a letter imploring Democrats not to enact the types of protectionist measures they are threatening. I am astonished that the Democrats don't understand even the most basic principles of economics.

Nevertheless, it seems clear that Bush will "pass on" stronger economy to his successor than he inherited from Clinton.

Health Care:

Bush has proposed an elegantly simple solution to closing the health care gap by a combination of tax code changes and targeted government intervention. The Democrats won't even discuss it since it is not a government takeover of healthcare. The Democrats just passed a massive government program, which Bush vetoed, to provide taxpayer funded health care to children in families earning 400% of the poverty level. This would shift many children that currently have private health insurance to "free" government health care at the expense of the taxpayers. Bush has proposed $5B in additional funding to cover all the children that are in poverty, but the Democrats have rejected this proposal. In the Democrats' view just covering the children that need it does not provide as much political hay as forcing Bush to act responsibly and veto a bloated bill that doesn't make sense.

The bottom line: Bush has tried to address the health care problem but he has been blocked by the Democrats that will only accept a total government run solution.

Terrorism:

We’ve taken the fight to them. The rhetoric on the Democrat side has changed significantly since the Petreaus hearings, as they understand that the military success of the surge means they have to give Bush more time for a political solution to develop. The Bush Administration mismanaged the war for too long but is now doing the right things. We still have troops in the western U.S. (Indian Wars), South Korean (Korean War), and Japan and Germany (WW II). Even Hillary is saying that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for an extended period of times. Personally I think we could do worse than having a substantial military force in the most consequential region of the world today.

Energy:

Bush has continued to aggressively promote alternative energy sources. Bush has also realistically promoted all the things that the Democrats reject: responsible drilling on the continental shelf, drilling in the arctic wilderness (where no human will ever go otherwise), clean coal, nuclear, etc. Bush's combined renewable energy proposals and realistic traditional energy policies provide a well thought out and realistic solution.

The Democrats solution? No nukes, no coal, no drilling, no wind farms near wealthy liberal neighborhoods. Instead, their "ace in the hole" is corn-based ethanol which takes more energy to create than it provides. Plus, at best, it is a drop in the proverbial bucket. This policy has driven corn and other agriculture prices through the roof. Food generally, and beef specifically, have seen huge increases.

The Democrats energy policy is essentially a regressive tax on the poor without solving the energy problem. The bottom line is that the Democrats are basically ignoring the problem and proposing unrealistic solutions. The GOP is dealing with reality and proposing balanced, responsible solutions.

All in all, I'd have to say that the Bush Administration stacks up pretty favorably when it comes to "passing it on".