# Bush...whats he doing right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2004, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035 "2004-03-29T05:54:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/61 "2004-03-30T02:44:52Z")
I am a Democrat for this election, though admittedly a reluctant one. Not being a rabid partisan of either party I can admit to a couple of things that Bush has done well. Hell, I can admit to a couple of things that every president in history has done well. His amnesty of illegal immigrants was a tough political call and the right thing to do. The criticism would be that he did it for political gain. Frankly, I don’t care. Recognizing the economic value of immigrants, whether legal or illegal, to America is rare for a politician. I have been alarmed by nativist sentiments from both sides of the aisle for some time and I appreciate voices in opposition. He may gain Hispanic votes by this position, but he will lose many others as well. The change in mission for NASA was vital. I have little patience for those who want to wait until all the problems on earth are ‘fixed’ before we explore space. That will never happen. There is nothing special about this time that precludes continuing to explore our origins and the great questions left unanswered. The Hubble telescope should also be a top priority. Anyone who can’t appreciate the immense scientific value of the telescope hasn’t been paying attention. Humans have always explored, and that should not stop. I believe the exploration of space can unite humanity in ways that few other pursuits can. Giving that up because Social Security is underfunded is shortsighted and foolish. I would give Bush a very qualified endorsment on free trade issues as the lesser of many evils. I am a free trade purist so this may only apply to me. Many of the Democratic nominees either engage in populist economic rhetoric that they know will do lasting harm to the country, or they failed Econ 101. Either explanation troubles me. Bush has not done a damn thing about farm subsidies or steel tariffs, but compared to my fears about stooges like Gephardt his record is acceptable. He has also failed in many areas, and will not be getting my vote. I find him repugnant in the arena of civil liberties and social issues. I also don’t believe he is bright enough to carry out the duties of the presidency. My only steadfast rule is that I must believe that my President is more intelligent than I am. His failures internationally are legion, most egregiously his declaration that combat was over in Iraq. I just believe that rabid partisanship reflects poorly on the holder of the belief. A reasoning person does not subscribe whole heartedly to the dogma of one party or the other. Every president does some things well. The question is whether they do enough things well to deserve to keep their job. This one hasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/62 "2004-03-30T03:11:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Bush has not done a damn thing about farm subsidies or steel tariffs While I agree that both of these were colossal blunders (as was the prescription drug benefit for seniors), I think it’s important to realize that President Gore or Kerry would probably have done the same thing. In fact, Kerry is calling for even more tariffs, and even more agriculture subsidies. And I think Bush repealed the steel tariffs under pressure from the EU. > [@](#): > > He has also failed in many areas, and will not be getting my vote. I find him repugnant in the arena of civil liberties and social issues. Well… I’m a civil libertarian and an agnostic. I would certainly oppose any intrusions into civil liberties. But it seems to me the rhetoric over Bush’s supposed infringement on civil liberties is a little overblown. Can you describe some of these infringements? What has the Patriot act really done to undermine the civil liberties of Americans. Maybe I’m just not aware of them, because this is one area where American policy has no impact on Canada, and I don’t follow it as closely as others. > [@](#): > > I also don’t believe he is bright enough to carry out the duties of the presidency. My only steadfast rule is that I must believe that my President is more intelligent than I am. Bush probably has an IQ of somewhere around 130 or so, judging from his SATs and officer’s exams. About the same as Al Gore’s. Democrats love to call Republicans stupid. Reagan was ‘stupid’. Dan Quayle was ‘stupid’. Conservatives are all a bunch of mouth-breathing rednecks (just ask **Aeschines**. If you think Bush is stupid, what evidence do you offer that this is the case? Does anyone know what Kerry’s IQ might be? What were his SAT scores? What kind of grades did he get in college? I tried finding that information, but with no luck. > [@](#): > > His failures internationally are legion, most egregiously his declaration that combat was over in Iraq. He did NOT say that. He said “Major Combat Operations” are over - which was true. Major combat operations are things like massed tank battles, large scale clashes of infantry, etc. All that ended at the time Bush said it did. In the _same speech_ where he declared major combat operations over, he said: > [@](#): > > We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. > … > The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/63 "2004-03-30T03:42:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Bush probably has an IQ of somewhere around 130 or so, judging from his SATs and officer’s exams. I don’t want to get into another hijack, but please don’t repeat this junk any more. You can’t base an IQ estimate on SAT scores or officer’s exams. Why not just give the SAT score or officer exam scores in support of your argument? But, in my book, as they say, stupid is as stupid does. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/64 "2004-03-30T03:55:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I didn’t make either point. Sorry if I’ve mischaracterized what you said. I thought that you were talking about the war on terror when you said this: > [@Aeschines](#): > > Generally been on the side of reactionary politics, if not outright fascism. . I then applied the rest of my post (people say that he also hasn’t done enough on terror) to the world in general. I see that I’ve been inaccurate, and I apologize. As for the rest of your post, there are arguments on both sides of many issues that you’ve cited for reasons why Bush is a “fascist.” Again, I don’t think that fascist is the same thing as conservative, but hopefully I can provide a few responses as food for thought: > [@Aeschines](#): > > I think he’s fascist because… > > 1. He supports big business and the rich to an extreme extent (no tax on dividends, no estate tax, **lower tax rates for top income brackets, soft on corporate crime** , etc.) First of all, Bush lowered the tax rates for the top income brackets, but he also lowered the income tax rates for all other brackets, too. And the lower incomes actually got a larger percent tax cut. (The lower income brackets are still taxed at significantly lower rates. You probably already knew that, but just in case you thought that Bush had actually lower tax rates for the wealthy, I wanted to cover my bases.) And I’m surprised that you would say he’s soft on corporate crime. Martha Stewart is likely going to jail for 5 years . . . and all she did was lie to investigators. She didn’t even committ any corporate fraud. We have yet to see what’s going to happen to the execs at Tyco, Enron, and Adelphia. But I have a feeling that it ain’t going to be pretty. And the Admin raised the penalties for corporate crime. According to [this article](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/09/national/main535830.shtml): > [@](#): > > Investigations of Enron Corp., WorldCom Inc. and Adelphia Communications Corp. have raised the profile of corporate crime — and government’s response to it. Executives in those companies could now be sent to prison for life if convicted of wrongdoing, critics said. > > “You’d have to kill somebody to get the amount of time that’s going to come out of these amendments,” said Jim Felman, a defense attorney from Tampa, Fla., who advises the commission. “It’s absurd.” The article also quotes people saying that Bush didn’t go far enough, but I have a hard time believing that Bush should have gone farther than life in prison. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 1. He is to the far right on every social issue. Wow. This is not only false, it’s wildly false. Bush has been catching tons of criticism from his right on social issues. Some issues on which Bush is not “far right,” or even "right:"stem cell research, spending, prescription drugs for the elderly, funding to the National Endowment for the Arts (which he increased), trade protectionism (the aid goes to both the CEOs and the workers, who get to keep their jobs), immigration, education (Ted Kennedy drafted his education bill), and environmentalism (see the article I linked to earlier). And those are just the ones off the top of my head. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/65 "2004-03-30T03:58:53Z")
I’ll also grant you that Bush has supported NASA. Good. Does he really mean that we should/can/will go to Mars? That’s another issue. Yes, I think a lot of the people who support Bush do so for emotional reasons, not out of having weighed the political pros and cons. They identify with his “brand” and rhetoric. His conservatism on social issues. This is the kind of person I’m talking about. Yes, I should drop the pejorative “redneck”–that doesn’t advance the debate. Sam, I understand your vision for a laissez-faire, low-regulation, small-gov US. The problems with this vision are as follows: 1. A modern country cannnot be run that way. No modern country is. 2. The Repubs pay lip-service to that vision. It’s empty rhetoric. Gov has only gotten bigger and more unwieldly under Repub admins. 3. The libertarian ideal is simply not desired by the majority of the people. It isn’t. Europe seems to be doing well IMO. The chronic unemployment, I think, is a different issue: they’re essentially paying people NOT to work, whereas in the US we just let people sit and suffer. I’m not saying the Euro solution (to the chronic problem of too little work for too few people, dealt with in other recent threads) is ideal, but the US way is definitely worse. Japan has lower taxes than the US but still has national health and employment insurance. But the US is too proud to learn from other countries. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/66 "2004-03-30T04:19:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Can you describe some of these infringements? Fair questions **Sam** and I will respond as I have time. It is a lack of respect for civil liberty that I abhor. The keeping of prisoners without recourse to counsel, including American citizens is inexcusable. Allowing for increased wiretaps and surveillance capability worries me as well. In this area I allow myself to stray beyond rational examples. I don’t see any evidence that the Bush administration thinks beyond the level that believes that if you are not guilty you have nothing to worry about. > [@](#): > > If you think Bush is stupid, what evidence do you offer that this is the case? I wasn’t referring to traditional IQ inteligence. I am not concerned with how Bush would do on his college boards. I see a man who has shown singularly unimpresssive results running corporations and his home state. There is a lack of vision and insight that I look for in a leader. You may have despised Clinton’s vision, but he had one. Bush hasn’t yet shown me the ability to understand complex problems and come up with innovative solutions. I actually don’t think he is as ‘dumb’, for lack of a better word, as the left would like to believe. > [@](#): > > He did NOT say that. He said “Major Combat Operations” are over Here I think you are standing on some wobbly ground. By standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a celebratory pose he clearly meant to convey to America that it was all over, but the cleanup. Less important than the words he used is the context of the announcement. It was a strategic error to heighten expectations when he knew, or should have known, that many more soldiers would be dying in Iraq. It betrayed a cavalier attitude that I, and many others of all political persuasions found distasteful. As a last note, notice that I put his free trade credentials on the plus side. I am just griping that they aren’t enough to make me open. Then again, nothing but a completely free market would be so I would be complaining about everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/67 "2004-03-30T04:43:52Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > First of all, Bush lowered the tax rates for the top income brackets, but he also lowered the income tax rates for all other brackets, too. And the lower incomes actually got a larger percent tax cut. We need to raise taxes on the rich, not lower them. And lower them for the poor. We also need to reduce the work burden the tax system places on the poor and middle class. True simplification, less red tape. Don’t forget Bush’s push for no tax on dividends (it’s double taxation! immoral!), and the _elimination_ of the estate tax. Sheesh! > [@](#): > > And I’m surprised that you would say he’s soft on corporate crime. Martha Stewart is likely going to jail for 5 years . . . and all she did was lie to investigators. She didn’t even committ any corporate fraud. We have yet to see what’s going to happen to the execs at Tyco, Enron, and Adelphia. But I have a feeling that it ain’t going to be pretty. This is good, but the SEC has not really tightened the bolts on abuses, etc. Then there is the whole “Cheney connection”–these guys are all silver-spooners looking out for their own. I said: He is far to the right on social issues. You then said, > [@](#): > > This is not only false, it’s wildly false. Bush has been catching tons of criticism from his right on social issues. Some issues on which Bush is not “far right,” or even "right:"stem cell research, spending, prescription drugs for the elderly, funding to the National Endowment for the Arts (which he increased), trade protectionism (the aid goes to both the CEOs and the workers, who get to keep their jobs), immigration, education (Ted Kennedy drafted his education bill), and environmentalism (see the article I linked to earlier). And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Not all of these are social issues. Bush was criticized recently on Salon for his stem cell position (I don’t have an opinion but I am farily pro-life). Drugs for the elderly is quasi-social, and Bush is leaning in the right direction there, I suppose. Funding the NEA, don’t know much about that; only quasi-social. Trade isn’t a social issue. The social issues on which Bush takes a reactionary position are the War on Drugs, gay marriage, and the death penalty–top of my head, too. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/68 "2004-03-30T04:55:46Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > His new space proposal for NASA is the best thing to happen to the cause of space since Apollo. :rolleyes: NASA has never done as good science as it has done in the last ten years. Bush’s BS proposal is never going to be adequately funded by his administration, and it will never generate good science, on the contrary it will detract from it. It’s a boondoggle from the get go, and smoke in the eyes of fools who think Dubya is a hero. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/69 "2004-03-30T05:09:17Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Bush, for all his failings, is closer to that ideal than is John Kerry, who never saw a government program he didn’t like, or a tax hike he didn’t approve of. John Kerry wants to re-regulate business. He wants not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. He is the epitome of the rich New England snob who thinks the rest of us are not capable of running our lives without his benign assistance. He thinks that he knows what business should do better than businessmen. He thinks he knows what technologies business should invest in. He thinks he knows how to run health care better than do doctors and patients. He thinks he can micro-manage the economy. God save us from people like him. Nice strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/70 "2004-03-30T05:47:49Z")
[qote] NASA has never done as good science as it has done in the last ten years. Bush’s BS proposal is never going to be adequately funded by his administration, and it will never generate good science, on the contrary it will detract from it. It’s a boondoggle from the get go, and smoke in the eyes of fools who think Dubya is a hero. [/quote] Are you familiar with the new program? Funding for science goes way up. Specifically, the ‘origins’ program, which includes programs like the James Webb telescope, the Terrestrial Planet Finder, and the Large Telescope Array. Also, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter gets an increase in funding. Since these are NASA’s main research programs for the next two decades, it would seem to counterindicate your belief that science will get short shrift. Think about where the money is coming from for the new program - Shuttle and ISS. Do you think those are a big boon to space science? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/71 "2004-03-31T03:23:07Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I fully expect that you folks would rather eat a live snake than give Bush credit for anything, but here is an article by [Greg Easterbrook (a.k.a. Tuesday Morning Quarterback)](http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1074) on Bush’s improvement of environmental standards. You expect us to just swallow everything that Easterbrook says? Let’s look at a few statements in that article: > [@](#): > > Bush’s NSR decision has been depicted–by beat reporters, Democratic presidential candidates, The New York Times editorial page and Eliot Spitzer, among others–as an astonishing, super-ultra horror, though total emissions from Midwest power plants have declined by 40 percent in the last two decades, and though the worst-case reading of the Bush NSR standard is that it will slow the rate of future declines. (1) Easterbrook doesn’t bother to mention that New York Attorney General Spitzer is supported by our Republican Governor George Pataki, along with the attornies general and governors of several other northeastern…and perhaps other…states, in their suit against the federal government over the relaxing of these standards. (2) Apparently, we are not allowed to be upset if Bush’s changes only slow the rate of future declines? That’s interesting considering that those on the anti-environmental side get quite exercised, for example, by estimates (often very inflated) of small decreases in the rate of economic growth if we, for example, try to curb greenhouse gas emissions. So, apparently, anything that might, under some estimates, have an effect of slowing the rate of economic growth a bit is evil but there is no need to worry about slowing the rate of decline in air pollution at all. > [@](#): > > Next, Bush has been widely ridiculed for proposing a “Clear Skies” bill that would require power plants to cut emissions, except greenhouse gas, by about 70 percent. Democrats in the Senate, plus quasi-Democrat James Jeffords, have fought Clear Skies with blazing fury, while editorial cartoonists have scoffed. Why are Democrats opposed to a 70 percent reduction in pollution? Because passage of the bill would give Bush an environmental victory before the 2004 election; Bush-bashing, not air quality, is the essence of the issue. Actually, it is because in the original “straw man” plan that EPA proposed, the emissions were projected to drop about the same, or maybe a little more, as under the “business as usual” scenario of the Clean Air Act. But, then when the final Clear Skies was unveiled, the caps in the cap-and-trade had gone much higher…And, miraculously, the business-as-usual scenario had also changed so that Clear Skies appeared to do a little better than “business-as-usual” when it in fact does much worse than the previous estimate of “business-as-usual.” [It all gets a bit confusing since the results under "business as usual"hard to estimate and even the cap-and-trade results have some play in them…See [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=224561&page=2&pp=50) thread for further discussion and cites. However, what is undoubtably true is that the original caps in the EPA proposals were meant to roughly produce the same cuts as business-as-usual and that these caps went up significantly once the White House got involved in things.] > [@](#): > > Besides, Democrats know that all forms of air pollution except greenhouse gas are already declining anyway, so the harm done by power plants just isn’t that great–though for posturing purposes, Democrats and enviros pretend it is a super-ultra-mega calamity. Well, [some studies](http://www.weblakes.com/Newsletter/Nov222000.html) show that the harm continues to be quite substantial: > [@](#): > > Pollution generated by U.S. power plants is responsible for cutting short the lives of over 30,000 Americans each year, more deaths than are caused by murderers or drunk drivers. The figures are contained in a groundbreaking new report unveiled by a coalition of environmental and public health groups. I don’t know if the EPA’s own estimates are this high, but I know they are still quite substantial. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/72 "2004-03-31T03:31:24Z")
> [@Easterbrook (in Age Quod Agis's cite)](#): > > Next, Bush has been widely ridiculed for proposing a “Clear Skies” bill that would require power plants to cut emissions, except greenhouse gas, by about 70 percent. Democrats in the Senate, plus quasi-Democrat James Jeffords, have fought Clear Skies with blazing fury, while editorial cartoonists have scoffed. Why are Democrats opposed to a 70 percent reduction in pollution? Because passage of the bill would give Bush an environmental victory before the 2004 election; Bush-bashing, not air quality, is the essence of the issue. Oh yeah…This Easterbrook quote actually deserves a little more attention. As [this](http://carper.senate.gov/newspaper/e_and_e_daily_power_plant.html) cite explains, other “quasi-Democrats” involved in this debate include Republican Senators Lincoln Chafee and Judd Gregg. And, the alternative bill proposed by some Democrats and moderate Republicans is the same sort of cap-and-trade approach as Clear Skies but with lower caps…In fact, I believe the caps may be quite similar to what was in the original EPA “straw man” proposal before the White House got their hands on it. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/73 "2004-03-31T07:28:01Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > You expect us to just swallow everything that Easterbrook says? I was hoping someone would respond to this because it’s an issue that I don’t know much about. So thanks for your information. > [@jshore](#): > > (1) Easterbrook doesn’t bother to mention that New York Attorney General Spitzer is supported by our Republican Governor George Pataki, along with the attornies general and governors of several other northeastern…and perhaps other…states, in their suit against the federal government over the relaxing of these standards. In fairness, this doesn’t tell us much. Just because one Republican-ish state governor supports the lawsuit does not make it a good idea. That’s especially true with Pataki, who’s not exactly being touted by the right or the left as a model of virtues to follow. And the same goes for the two Republican Senators who support the lawsuit. Plus, by supporting the lawsuit against the Bush Admin, Pataki, et al. are able to appear environmentally friendly without actually doing anything. They don’t have to actually increase environmental standards because they get to look like they’re in favor of the increases without taking on the attendant burdens of the increases. And they also get money from the federal government for their state’s coffers. > [@jshore](#): > > (2) Apparently, we are not allowed to be upset if Bush’s changes only slow the rate of future declines? . . . People can certainly get incensed about it, but they should present the issue honestly. Note: I’m not saying that you have ever presented the issue in anything but an absolutely honest fashion. I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you are both knowledgable on this subject and honest. I’m just saying that there are those (maybe even myself) that tend to reflexively assume that Bush has actually lowered environmental standards, when that isn’t the case. That’s why I presented the article – to rebut that assumption, and therefore present Bush’s raising of environmental standards as something good. So I have a few questions. First, as I understand it, your criticism is that Bush didn’t improve standards enough. Is that correct? If so, are you criticizing Bush for not adopting the EPA’s more stringent initial suggestions? Second, since I’m not positive that EPA standards work like most other federal regulations, I should ask: were Bush’s environmental standards – embodied in Clear Skies and elsewhere – an improvement over previous Administrations or previous years? Third, Easterbrook said that Bush’s policies will slow the rate of decline _at worst_. Are you suggesting that that’s the best case scenario? Is that the scenario that you think is more likely? > [@jshore](#): > > I don’t know if the EPA’s own estimates are this high, but I know they are still quite substantial. I admit that I’m inherently skeptical of such numbers. [Here](http://www.ems.org/air_pollution/air_pollution.html) is a link to a study apparently placing the figure at 50,000 to 100,000 deaths per year associated with air pollution. But my problem isn’t just the numbers. I wonder how these figures are tabulated. How does anybody know what deaths are caused by air pollution? Surely the EPA isn’t suggesting that somebody’s death certificate would list the cause of death as “Air Pollution,” is it? Any information on this would help satisfy my curiousity. Thanks again for your posts. I’ll try to educate myself a little and get back to you. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/74 "2004-03-31T18:33:48Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > In fairness, this doesn’t tell us much. Just because one Republican-ish state governor supports the lawsuit does not make it a good idea. That’s especially true with Pataki, who’s not exactly being touted by the right or the left as a model of virtues to follow. And the same goes for the two Republican Senators who support the lawsuit. Well, perhaps these folks aren’t touted by the Right or Left as models of virtues because they are moderates rather than ideologues. But, the point I was making is that Easterbrook’s claim that this is all politically-motivated “Bush bashing” just doesn’t hold water when you consider some of the people involved. Why do Pataki and Gregg and Chafee want to bash the President of their own party? In fact, it can probably do them nothing but harm from the point of view of political advancement within their party. > [@](#): > > Plus, by supporting the lawsuit against the Bush Admin, Pataki, et al. are able to appear environmentally friendly without actually doing anything. They don’t have to actually increase environmental standards because they get to look like they’re in favor of the increases without taking on the attendant burdens of the increases. And they also get money from the federal government for their state’s coffers. Well, I guess one can come up with potential bad motives for any political stand. [By the way, states are free to set stricter pollution controls within their state if they want to but the reason these states are upset is that a lot of their pollution problems come from coal-fired plants in the Midwest.] And, you are incorrect about the money part…They are not suing for monetary awards; they are merely trying to get the Bush regulations overturned. Thus, they are spending money on the suit and are not going to get money back if they win. > [@](#): > > People can certainly get incensed about it, but they should present the issue honestly. Agreed. And, I’ll admit that there is spin on both sides. > [@](#): > > So I have a few questions. First, as I understand it, your criticism is that Bush didn’t improve standards enough. Is that correct? If so, are you criticizing Bush for not adopting the EPA’s more stringent initial suggestions? > > Second, since I’m not positive that EPA standards work like most other federal regulations, I should ask: were Bush’s environmental standards – embodied in Clear Skies and elsewhere – an improvement over previous Administrations or previous years? Okay…It is a bit complicated, but here is the essence of what is happening as I understand it: The Clean Air Act mandates the attainment of certain air pollution standards. In order to attain them, there are then regulations written (by the executive branch, I believe) that mandate emissions reductions in order to meet those standards. The way the Bush Administration was able to claim Clear Skies is an improvement over “business-as-usual” was to use what people are calling a “Rip Van Winkle” assumption for the business-as-usual case. What this means is that the Administration calculated what would happen to emissions due to regulations currently on the books. The problem with that is that everyone agrees that the regs currently on the books won’t lead to the attainment of the air pollution standards in future years. So, a realistic “business-as-usual” assumption would assume that the regs will necessarily be tightened (since if the executive branch refuses to do so, they can be sued because they will not be in compliance with the Clean Air Act) so that the standards will be attained. It was under such an assumption that the EPA derived their “business as usual” case and then decided on a cap-and-trade approach with cap limits under their “straw man” scenario that would do as well or even slightly better than business-as-usual but would cost less because of the flexible market-friendly nature of cap-and-trade (plus the likely savings in litigation costs). Clear Skies then emerged from this, resembling the “straw man” scenario except with the caps on emissions significantly higher. As I understand it, Clear Skies would have replaced the provisions in the Clean Air Act that mandate the air pollution standards (which is why Congress had to get involved). Thus, it would have led to higher pollution (i.e., a lower rate of emissions reductions) than would have been obtained through full enforcement of the Clean Air Act as it is written. [The power companies, by the way, could scarcely constrain their glee over the Clear Skies Initiative since it would have forced them to meet less stringent standards in a way that is also more economically-efficient. Of course, this latter fact…the economic efficiency part…is a good thing which is why Carper’s alternative bill is also a cap-and-trade system…just with more aggressive (i.e., lower) caps.] Now, since Clear Skies was never passed, what Bush has gone ahead and done (and Easterbrook applauds) is basically said that he is going to implement the Clear Skies Initiative emissions reductions through the executive branch. I.e., they will write up these regs for the cap-and-trade system. Since they couldn’t get Congress to act, these regs won’t negate the mandates of the Clean Air Act. And, since these emissions reductions presumably won’t be enough to get into compliance with the act, there will either have to be new regs in the future or a modification of the Clean Air Act to weaken or eliminate the attainment goals. But, in the meantime, these regs will mandate some emissions reductions. How much credit Bush deserves for doing this is debatable. It is, I suppose, better than doing nothing, and I think some environmental groups may have given it a tepid endorsement. But, it is only doing the sort of thing that will have to be done (in fact to a greater extent) anyway under the attainment goals of the Clean Air Act. > [@](#): > > But my problem isn’t just the numbers. I wonder how these figures are tabulated. How does anybody know what deaths are caused by air pollution? Surely the EPA isn’t suggesting that somebody’s death certificate would list the cause of death as “Air Pollution,” is it? Any information on this would help satisfy my curiousity. Your guess on how these estimates are made is as good as mine. Clearly, it is not an exact science which is why one finds a range of estimates. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/75 "2004-03-31T19:34:57Z")
That’s a wonderful post, **jshore**. Thanks for all the info. Instead of relying solely on you (which certainly wouldn’t be the worst way to learn about environmental regs), I’ll try to educate myself a bit more on this stuff. God knows that it’s important enough for me to spend some time on it. Thanks again. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/76 "2004-03-31T20:56:58Z")
**Blush** Thanks! Glad you found it a useful summary. I think I got it mostly right…It is pretty challenging to find good sources that explain all the facts rather than giving sound-bites for one point of view or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/77 "2004-03-31T21:48:33Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > But you beat me to it, so I’ll just ask a corrolary question. > > I suppose a Bushie might say the Prez has done the following. > > 1. Responded well to 9/11. > > 2. Successfully liberated Afganistan. > > 3. Successfully liberated Iraq. > > 4. Cut taxes and thereby stimulated the economy, etc. > > Has bush introduced any legislation to make the country different or better? The above four points are all I can think of that a supporter might propose as “good things.” > > I myself despise Bush for the following reasons: > > 1. Taken no action to solve the nation’s _real_ problems, such as a lack of healthcare for all, horrendous job market, increasing economic inequality, etc. > > 2. Undertaken a costly war based upon incredibly poor intelligence and thereafter defending it only flimsy and constantly shifting grounds (plus jokes! haw haw! no WMDs here! haw haw!). > > 3. Taken a faux free trade stance while going out of his way to prop up dying or obsolete industries (steel, sugar). Hey, help out the fired workers, not the industry CEOs. > > 4. Been a shame to our country because of his brazenly ignorant and illiterate rhetoric (“Bushisms”). > > 5. Enthusiastically continued the wasteful and immoral “War on Drugs.” > > 6. Generally been on the side of reactionary politics, if not outright fascism. This is a very good post, and, thank God, well typed. But I think this post is more important for a very deeper reason. What you have done, Aeschines, is successfully boiled down the philosophically political difference between the American Right and Left. I agree with the four good things that you listed above, that President Bush has done well, except that I feel that these are good things. I assume by your tone that you feel opposite. You also ask what legislation President Bush has introduced to make the country better. As a Conservative, I am against more legislation. I feel that in most respects, we have too much legislation. Likewise, I don’t agree with most of the points that you made on the opposite. But, so be it. One concession: The War On Drugs has always been a gray area for me. The amount of money and infrastructure that is required to achieve a partial victory now and then is way out of bounds. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/78 "2004-03-31T23:10:02Z")
> [@Chicago Faucet](#): > > I agree with the four good things that you listed above, that President Bush has done well, except that I feel that these are good things. But, let’s look at this list one-by-one: (1) **Responded well to 9-11:** In what way has he responded that well to it? I mean, let’s face it, 9-11 while a horrible event is the sort of thing that makes it hard for a leader to look bad as everyone rallies around him. Look at Giuliani who was pretty much reviled before 9-11 and loved afterwards. What exactly has Bush done that is so wonderful and different from what others would have done? (2) **Successfully liberated Afganistan:** Yes…Again probably not much different than most other Presidents would have done. But then he diverted resources from this to go after Iraq. And, of course, how “liberated” Afghanistan is and what its long term fate will be are still uncertain. (3) **Successfully liberated Iraq:** But, at what cost in terms of money, lives lost, American credibility, creating additional animosity toward the U.S., and setting a bad precedent for other nations to follow if they think they might perhaps be threatened by another nation? And, again, while it is certainly good for the Iraqis to have Saddam out of the picture, their long term fate is still uncertain. (4) **Cut taxes and thereby stimulated the economy, etc:** Cut taxes primarily for whom? And, at what costs in terms of creating long term structural deficits? And, given how expensive this tax cut was, how much stimulus did it really create?..Barring a near-miracle rebound in the next 9 months, Bush will still finish his first term as the first President since Herbert Hoover to have seen a net job loss. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/79 "2004-03-31T23:17:40Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > (1) **Responded well to 9-11** … Oh yeah…And, who can forget the amount of good will expressed toward America after 9/11, with “LeMonde” apparently having a headline that read something like “We are all Americans Now”…and how that good will has been squandered by the Bush Administration? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035/80 "2004-04-01T02:00:00Z")
**Jshore** asks: > [@](#): > > **(1) Responded well to 9-11**: In what way has he responded that well to it? I mean, let’s face it, 9-11 while a horrible event is the sort of thing that makes it hard for a leader to look bad as everyone rallies around him. Look at Giuliani who was pretty much reviled before 9-11 and loved afterwards. What exactly has Bush done that is so wonderful and different from what others would have done? Well, fast, decisive action may actually have prevented many more attacks immediately thereafter. [Chicago, L.A. towers were next targets](http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm) > [@](#): > > LONDON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda’s purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes. > > \*\*Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization’s plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators. \*\* Now, I know that you’re going to say that any president would have responded exactly the same way, but that’s just speculation. In fact, we have plenty of examples of Clinton’s responses before 9/11 that indicate that it might not have been that way at all. For example, the original WTC attacks, which could have killed four times as many people if the truck with the bomb had been a few feet closer to a main support pillar. Or the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which killed 17 Americans and almost sank a 4 billion dollar warship. Plus, we have numerous Democrats who opposed the liberation of Afghanistan. So I think this is a fine example of where Bush did what was exactly right, and saying that anyone would have done exactly the same thing is hindsight. Especially given the speed at which Bush acted, which appears to have been decisive in stopping further attacks. Other presidents might have gone into Afghanistan, but they might have waited much longer for more support, or negotiated with the Taliban endlessly, or whatever. > [@](#): > > **(4) Cut taxes and thereby stimulated the economy, etc**: Cut taxes primarily for whom? And, at what costs in terms of creating long term structural deficits? And, given how expensive this tax cut was, how much stimulus did it really create?..Barring a near-miracle rebound in the next 9 months, Bush will still finish his first term as the first President since Herbert Hoover to have seen a net job loss. Here’s a fun link: [Bush - Working](http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_Start.htm). It’s a freelance pro-Bush ad, and it’s very well done. Expect to see more of this kind of stuff from the administration and others, and it’s going to be very effective. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-whats-he-doing-right/237035.md?page=5)