I like American Idol. I’m a musician, I married a musician, it’s one of our family guilty pleasures. But I miss the days when time American Idol used to be a “singing competition.” Simon occasionally uses this term during some of his critiques. But he’s not consistent. And the bias of the judges is getting easier to notice. For example, for whatever reason, they all love Megan, who I refer to as “Arm Tat.” She’s got an average voice at best, but the judges have her on a pedestal. Simon described her as “current” and “something that this competition needs.” Um, if Megan is current, current sucks.
I understand the need to stimulate ratings, hence the survival of the schizophrenic in the shiny shirt (he never took this seriously and took a slot away from someone that actually respected this amazingly rare opportunity), and the over-dramatic girly-boy, but c’mon. Some great singers got cut before the final group, so don’t tell me this is a “singing competition.” If it was, Jorge from Puerto Rico would still be in and Megan, Blind Guy, and/or Oil Rig guy would be out.
My prediction? It will be Danny versus Adam in a battle of straight versus gay America. Quality mature power vocals versus over-the-top Axel Rose/Freddy Mercury. If Adam saves “Sweet Child O’ Mine” for the finals, he will win.
I forgot it was St. Patrick’s Day. I’m not wearing green. Instead of changing my shirt I’m temporarily adopting a liberal attitude.
“Separation of church and state, maaaaan! This religious holiday is an attempt by the neo-cons to establish a theocracy man! I ain’t wearing no green shirt maaaaan, I’m not gonna be forced by The Man to succumb to the influence of radical Christians!”
Now I need to find some green beer…
One of the biggest myths about our current economic situation is that it was caused by the failed policies of George W. Bush. President Obama described it as “a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years…” I guess he drinks his own kool-ade. The Wicked Speaker from the West blames “the Bush administration’s eight long years of failed deregulation policies.” Captain Peanut, a.k.a. President Carter, blames the “atrocious economic policies of the Bush administration,” particularly “deregulation and . . . a withdrawal of supervision of Wall Street.”
But what is the truth?
We first need to define how to measure deregulation. I suggest three categories:
- Paperwork: Pages of legislation
- Money: Budget spending
- People: Staffing levels
Paperwork
Under the Bush Administration the Federal Register – the government’s annual compendium of proposed and finalized regulations – was more than 74,000 pages every year but one. During the Clinton years, by contrast, the Federal Register reached that length just once. Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.
In addition, President Bush signed hundreds of laws commanding federal agencies to produce new regulations. One is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which established new or enhanced standards for all publicly held companies and accounting firms in the United States. Another is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, which imposed new restrictions on campaign spending and prohibited unregulated contributions (“soft money”) to national political parties.
Money
Adjusting for inflation, the regulatory budget grew from $25 billion in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $43 billion in FY 2009 – a 70 percent increase. “In constant dollars,” writes James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal, “the Bush regulatory budget increases vastly exceed those of predecessors Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and, yes, Lyndon Johnson.” Freeman also write “Looking at regulatory spending in percentage terms, Mr. Bush’s staggering 2003 increase of more than 24% was the largest in the last 50 years.”
Ten Largest Annual Percentage Increases
in Total Regulatory Budget Spending (last 50 years)
| GW Bush 2003 Nixon 1973 Nixon 1971 GW Bush 2002 Nixon 1972 Kennedy 1963 Ford 1976 Nixon 1970 Johnson 1968 Nixon 1975 |
24.3% 20.0 19.6 16.4 14.6 13.6 10.9 10.6 09.5 09.4 |
The Bush team spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.
With specific regard for the category of finance and banking, expenditures were cut by 3 percent during the Clinton years and increased 29 percent from 2001 to 2009, making it very hard to argue that Bush deregulated the financial sector.
People
Let’s look at staffing levels. Regulatory agencies employed 175,000 people in 2000. They employ nearly 264,000 today. In eight years, Bush increased the federal government’s regulatory staff by 91,196 employees. In his eight years Clinton cut it by 969.
So there you have it. The Bush Adminstration spent more, wrote more, and employed more. Tell me Mr. President and Madam Speaker, how with a clear conscience can George W. Bush be called a failed de-regulator?
