People build their opinions of things incrementally over time. I have a 2007 Subaru Legacy Spec-B. It's their best car. I had a BMW Z4 prior to that, which was a great car, but only a 2-seater, and completely ineffectual in the snow, even a little snow. But it was good. Solid. And it and all of its internal gadgets and accessories performed well.
I began my relationship with my Subaru with the same positive opinion. Since then, things like the bottom shield coming loose twice, the carpeting wearing through (can you believe?), actual combined mileage of only 21 mpg (the BMW had 2 more cylinders and was a sports car and got 25), a misbehaving sunroof, a rear window which squeaks when raised or lowered, a shifter knob which turns in my hand, a rear seatbelt which flaps loudly in the breeze from open windows, vents which pour air from them even when the fan is off, and a navigation system which offers helpful instructions like, "Right turn ahead, then turn right ahead," in contrast to the BMW's system, which said, "In 800 feet (then again in 400 and finally 100) turn right, then prepare to turn right."
But it handles snow well.
Well, the Bush administration is my Subaru, except for the fact that the Subaru is good in the snow, and I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the Bush administration is good at, that is, the thing most of us irrespective of party affiliation can point to as a clear, obvious and significant success.
Was it the tax cuts and the economic expansion which followed and gave us historically low unemployment concurrent with historically low interest rates? Clear and obvious? Well, no. They were made during time of war, when we knew federal spending would be high and remain there to fund the war. So the tax cuts - as some would boast, nearly causally responsible for our economic expansion - saddled us, the citizens and taxpayers of the United States, with the largest dollar increase in our national debt of any presidency.
And low interest rates? Thank you, China. Chinese household savings rates, depending where you look, are in the mid to high 20s as a percentage of disposable income. For the entire country, it's closer to 40%, because the government also runs surpluses. The government could be using that surplus to build roads, schools, bridges, a larger military. And households could use it to buy more and nicer things. But both are saving in large amounts, and this post needs more of a China expert than I to explain why. But I can tell you that interest rates would be far higher in this country if the money the Bush administration has borrowed in large amounts - due to less monies coming in (tax cuts) and big spending otherwise (the war) - had been borrowed from the domestic money supply, that is, borrowed nationally, instead of from China. The Chinese have funded our debt by buying our T-Bills at their currently low rates, thereby keeping them low, along with every other rate in the U.S. banking system, given America's pathetically low household saving rate, and the fact that the government doesn't save at all, but runs huge deficits.
Had George Bush, when campaigning for tax cuts, emphasized equally the economic upturn we would experience and the historic increase we would incur in our debt - and the ever larger portion of that debt which would be owned by China - would that campaign issue have been as persuasive and successful?
A clear and obvious success. I won't even talk about Afghanistan or Iraq.
And it all combines to giving us a car we are stuck with for a while, but that we patently don't like.
Recent Comments