Developing story...no link yet.

First Pitt, now O'Neill, wonder whose next

Larry Lindsey, the chief economic advisor in the White House, is also gone.

These two were expected to be sacrificed after the election. O'Neill was never completely on board with the rest of the administration. Lindsey does not get along great with the rest of the economic team, and tends to be a rambler from everything I have read. One of those people who spends two hours explaining a two minute answer.

Nothing surprising about these announcements. It will be interesting to see who is appointed as replacements.

I think there is a deeper issue in this shakeup. The only items on the Bush agenda were to give large tax cuts to the wealthy and to get rid of regulation of big business. There was no vision beyond those priorities.

These policies have been an utter failure and the heat is beginning to build up-- O'Neill may be a decent guy, but he can't do anything in an administration that is rudderless and hell bent on creating Texas on a national level.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
I think there is a deeper issue in this shakeup. The only items on the Bush agenda were to give large tax cuts to the wealthy and to get rid of regulation of big business. There was no vision beyond those priorities.

---

That's simply not true. Bush also wants to wipe out Social Security and put old people out on the streets where they will be forced to eat dog food or, even worse, cat food. Moreover, he also wants to set up a theocracy in which all abortions are illegal and Wednesday night potluck suppers are mandatory. Finally, Bush wants to destroy the environment and poison our food and drinking water. In the future, please be more thorough.

Actually, m10, a more accurate description would be to give tax cuts to everyone, including the wealthy (don't they get to save on taxes, too?), and to decrease, not get rid of, business reg. Like most of us here, as a single man who is taxed rather highly even though I earn less than $100K a year, I'd welcome the chance to direct my money elsewhere, rather than have the government fritter it away. I'm sure Joe and Jane Breeder and their four kids, who have a total household income of less than 50K a year would feel the same - and I'd hardly call any of us "wealthy."

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:



That's simply not true. Bush also wants to wipe out Social Security and put old people out on the streets where they will be forced to eat dog food or, even worse, cat food. Moreover, he also wants to set up a theocracy in which all abortions are illegal and Wednesday night potluck suppers are mandatory. Finally, Bush wants to destroy the environment and poison our food and drinking water. In the future, please be more thorough.

---

Give him two more years, he should be able to get all this done, assuming hes not on vacation or out
campaigning.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Give him two more years, he should be able to get all this done, assuming hes not on vacation or out
campaigning.

---

Better yet, give him six.

Given the tone set by the Kissinger appointment, who will be the next Treasury sec? Ken Lay or Jack Welch? Is Robert Vesco still alive?

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
Given the tone set by the Kissinger appointment, who will be the next Treasury sec? Ken Lay or Jack Welch? Is Robert Vesco still alive?

---

How about Oliver North or G. Gordan Liddy!

[quote]Originally posted by charliecstl:
These two were expected to be sacrificed after the election. O'Neill was never completely on board with the rest of the administration. Lindsey does not get along great with the rest of the economic team, and tends to be a rambler from everything I have read.

---

The Bono thing probably didn't help. I wonder if Lindsey will show up on the faculty of George Mason University.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
How about Oliver North or G. Gordon Liddy!

---

Too busy raking in the bucks whining on the radio.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
I think there is a deeper issue in this shakeup. The only items on the Bush agenda were to give large tax cuts to the wealthy and to get rid of regulation of big business. There was no vision beyond those priorities.

These policies have been an utter failure and the heat is beginning to build up-- O'Neill may be a decent guy, but he can't do anything in an administration that is rudderless and hell bent on creating Texas on a national level.

---

Dont forget, tax cuts are the answer to everything, its your one size fits all/one trick pony economic policy. Clinton surplus? tax cuts
Bush deficits? tax cuts Trillion dollar war? tax cuts....see it works for everything.

Let the trickle down begin.....

Tax cuts are popular political strategies, but economically not all that sound. A few hours of macroeconomics makes it clear to most people that it is a bit more complex than that. Yet, that has been the centerpiece of the Bush economic policy for his first two years. I guess he has really taken to heart the "KISS" principle.

I did laugh at the "potential" appointees mentioned. One of the weekly national newsmags had a blurb last week that was interesting. It talked about five different men who were embroiled in the whole Iran-Contra debacle. They were all found to have lied/covered up/misrepresented facts during the hearings in the 80s. Suddenly, they are all holding significant appointments in the Bush administration. If at first you get caught fooling the public, find a way to get a second shot and do it better, I guess.

To quote the famous Ferris Buellers Day Off,

Bush called Reagan's tax cuts and trickle down economics theory what?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Voo
Voo
Voo Doo Economics

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Whats so pathetic here is that Bush has waited two long years to do anything. Thats two years too long. Lots of people hurting bad in the U.S. Bout time he started to do something.

UMP, I'm not a liberal. I'm a pretty conservative guy who benefited from the tax cut. However, it didn't make good sense. BTW, I am a CPA.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

A little trivia challenge: who was the only U.S. President to have retained his entire original cabinet through the end of his term? -- no deaths, resignations ...

Ump 25, cutting taxes while launching 2 wars and beefing up the military is going to create nightmarish outyear deficits. We tried this before- it was a failed policy in the 80's.

Also, tax cuts are fine if they produce the desired results. Cutting taxes for wealthy people tends to make them wealthier, not necessarily more willing to invest in the economy.

ump: one year two year, what does it matter. Bush has been totally anemic with regards to the economy.Absolutely zero leadership. He has masterfully catipulted everything but the economy to the front burner. The daily drumbeat of Iraq gets old day after day after day...The tax cut was an utter and complete failure. Didn't do a damn thing. Bush needs to get the heads of both parties togther and this one and start mapping out a strategy to get this country working...again.

[quote] Considering leading economists said the recession actually began in March 2000, yup, it's Bush's fault.

Let's see...when was he inaugurated? Oh yeah, January 20, 2001.

---

Ump your usually terrific with you commentary on all things baseball. However regarding the economy, I have to disagree with your statement above. A recession is generally regarded as two consecutive quarters of declining GNP. The following are the percent changes for the quarters of GNP in question.

Quarter 2 2000 +4.8%
Quarter 3 2000 +0.6%
Quarter 4 2000 +1.1%
Quarter 1 2001 -0.6%
Quarter 2 2001 -1.6%

Here is an article that further discusses when the last recession started. All that being said, the statistics do indicate we are in a recovery though.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: phillyrunner ]

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: phillyrunner ]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I think the federal government gets far too much blame and credit for the various rises and falls in the economy. However, Bush does deserve blame for the deficit...it irritates me to no end that these so-called fiscal conservatives are always lowering taxes and raising spending. Then when all the borrowed money stimulates the economy, they claim the recovery was all because of lower taxes.

DCB, Weren't there four? Harrison I, Taylor, Pierce & Garfield? Leastways Richard B. Morris thinks so!

gmginsfo -- you lawyers with your technicalities! For the question to work, the President himself needed to have served his entire four year term too ...

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

DCB, I though about that too, but yes, a technical re-reading of the question, as posed, did not refer to the Presidents' finishing their term, but rather the members.' So, that narrows it down to Pierce, right? I always thought he was a handsome man, BTW, and there's a great painting of him and Nathaniel Hawthorne in Italy, by SFBMorse, I believe.

Meet the new boss:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2002Dec8.html

>>
Bush Picks CSX Corp. Chief for Treasury
Railroad Executive Is In Final Review Stage

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 9, 2002; Page A01

President Bush has chosen CSX Corp. Chairman John W. Snow as the new treasury secretary, administration sources said yesterday.
....
Snow, a native of Toledo, did his undergraduate work at Kenyon College and the University of Toledo. He received a doctorate in economics from the University of Virginia in 1965 and a law degree from George Washington University in 1967.
....
<<

Resume:
>>
John W. Snow

Title: Chairman, president and chief executive, CSX Corp., Richmond.

Born: Aug. 2, 1939, in Toledo.

Education: Bachelor's degree, Kenyon College and University of Toledo, 1962; doctorate in economics, University of Virginia, 1965; law degree, George Washington University Law School, 1967.

Career: Assistant professor of economics, University of Maryland, 1965-67; Wheeler & Wheeler law firm, Washington, D.C., 1967-72; assistant general counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1972-73; adjunct professor of law, George Washington University Law School, 1972-75; deputy assistant secretary for policy, plans and international affairs, DOT, 1973-74; assistant secretary for governmental affairs, DOT, 1974-75; deputy undersecretary, DOT, 1975-76; administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1976-77; visiting professor of economics, University of Virginia, 1977; visiting fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 1977; vice president for governmental affairs, Chessie System Inc., 1977-80; senior vice president for corporate services, CSX Corp., 1980-84; executive vice president, CSX Corp., 1984-85; president and chief executive, Chessie System Railroads, 1985-86; president and chief executive, CSX Rail Transport, 1986-87; president and chief executive, CSX Transportation, 1987-88; president and chief operating officer, CSX Corp., 1988-89; president and chief executive, CSX Corp., 1989-91; chairman, president and chief executive, CSX Corp., 1991 to present.
<<

This new appointment is meeting with rather lukewarm support. Yet another corporate leader trying to run an organization that is not very much like a corporation. From what I have read, the markets are not sure how favorably they view his selection either.

Back to the whole premise of economics. Tax cuts are not good economic policy. Period. They NEVER produce the effects that are politically attached to them. And they will always proportionally favor higher income households. Kind of like a sales tax on clothes and food. Lower income families spend the majority of their income on these items, so they are taxed at a much higher proportional rate than higher income families. The reverse is true with a tax cut. The higher earners keep a larger portion of their income and the lower income families (the majority of spenders in the economy) get very little in the end.

The problem is not that the current administration caused the recession. The economy was headed that way as was pointed out. However, the problem is that everyone saw it coming and the administration did practically nothing to prevent it from happening. The Fed is the only organization that took preventive measures. It was clearly not enough. So, now that we went from major surpluses to major deficits and everyone sees the uncertainty of continued violence on the horizon, the administration should be more responsible and more adept at their policy initiatives to get things on track.

Not to make too much a hero of O'Neill, but he was too inclined to candor to last in this All-Secrets and Lies Administration. As for our phantom economic reign over the Earth, this 3-month-old column still scares me:

The End of Empire: America's Creditors Sit and Wait to Dethrone Us (Wm Greider, The Nation)

Did Dumbya run out of Iran Contra criminals to appoint?

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
I love it when the liberals run in here all in a flutter about these resignations. Like this hasn't happened before.

Let's see...Lloyd Bentsen resigned, even the "greatest Treasury Secretary of all time," Robert Rubin resigned.

Jeez, get over it. I say good riddance to O'Neill anyway. He was worthless.

---

Neither Bentsen nor Rubin was ASKED to resign, while O'Neill was. The comparison is spurious.

O'Neill was too candid, politically unreliable, had no sense of what his role was supposed to be, and was focused on reforming the tax code. His international proclamations were more than once embarrassing. Lindsey simply did not fit into the administration's game plan.

I am not convinced that Al Gore initially would have had a better game plan for the economy when he took office, since his chief aim was to continue to pay down the deficit as opposed to stimulating consumption, exports, and so forth.

However I do think that by now he would have 1) tried to get more federal dollars into the coffers of the cash-strapped states, which would have meant a slightly better situation for municipal governments as well as poor and working-class people across the country; 2) attempted to push through small, consumption-focused tax cuts for people earning under $200,000 while keeping any deficits as small as possible; 3) attempted further trimming of the federal government, which was one of his chief accomplishments as Vice President; and, most controversially, 4) raised taxes on the VERY richest Americans, which would have caused an uproar but which also would provide more money for any sort of war, though I think it would have taken him far longer, with much waffling, to send troops into Afghanistan. The economy would be in better shape, though.

That, in my opinion, is the chief success (and it was a brilliant one, I won't hesitate to say) of W.'s Presidency--the battles that ousted the Taliban. What has followed over there, however, as well as the current economic situation and the gutting of regulations (including the newly announced decision to allow pensions to move easily to cash-based status!) really speak to an awful presidency. Politically W. is doing well; in terms of policies, especially in the economic arena, he is a trainwreck.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]