For posterity
Posted by Charles II on May 9, 2009
This picture of Bush with his feet on the desk has apparently been disappeared from the web. This thumbnail is all that we (Dan of Pruning Shears and I) found. It was apparently up on The National Post and was last found by Google at wysinger.homestead.com/BushFeetDesk.jpg
Fortunately, Oliver Stone has immortalized the moment. But it’s a real lesson on how falsified and truncated our history has become, when armies of brown nosers go around after The Great Man sanitizing his image for posterity.
32 Responses to “For posterity”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Mercury Rising 鳯女 
Flee said
I saved a copy to my computer and I’m thinking I’ll frame one and put it up on my wall. Maybe we should all do this! :o)
Charles II said
Flee, if you mail it to me, I’ll post it. (myfullname)@aol.com will get you there.
Flee said
Will do!
dcblogger said
I don’t think that is brownosers, that looks like a professional white wash.
dcblogger said
I don’t think that is armies of brown nosers, that sounds like a professional white wash job, somebody got paid.
dcblogger said
oops
joel hanes said
Before Shrub usurped the Preznitzy, it was Harriet Miers’ job to scrub his Texas DMV records and the records of his National Guard service, etc.
Fortunately, it was beyond her powers to recall all the Yale yearbooks that contain the photo that best depicts W’s character: the team bully, breaking the rules of the game to deliberately hurt someone on the opposing team.
Phoenix Woman said
There’s still a picture online of a Bush staffer — minus jacket (take THAT, Andy Card!) standing next to Bush: http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/5455#comment-67789
Dan said
Thanks for the shout out, Charles.
Jonathan Versen said
Charles II, it’s not just this picture that has “been disappeared” I’ve tried to find an image of the March 2003 Newsweek cover of Bush praying(i.e., just before the launch of needless war no. x) but both the cover and the 3/2003 cover story are MIA.
Charles II said
Jonathan, no wonder Bush was so sure history would vindicate him. He apparently has the power to suffocate it.
As for the Newsweek cover, I suggest visiting a real library– and quickly, before the hard copy gets pulped into electronic form– or, failing that, a dentist’s office.
jawbone said
Here’s a record of the March 10, 2003, Bush praying Newsweek cover.
More Bush feet on desk said
From The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660
Charles II said
Ah, bless you, Bushfeet!
Apetit said
Does anyone know who the other men in the photo above are? I can’t make them out.
Charles II said
I would bet on Andy Card, Karen Hughes, and possibly Ari Fleischer, Apetit. But it’s admittedly more guess than knowledge.
Apetit said
Thank you!
Andrew said
Sure Guys and Gals. NICE TRY. The Bush image is photoshopped. These are NOT:
http://images.google.com/images?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=obama+with+feet+on+desk&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=_kpwS5HsBZawNIO65doE&gbv=2
Charles II said
The picture of Bush with his feet on the desk is not Photoshopped, Andrew. If you notice, there’s a link to an Economist article in the comment thread. That happens to be premium copy, so I haven’t posted the photos, but I just happen to have saved a copy so that this kind of crap can’t be pulled to sanitize the memory of America’s Worst President.
The picture I posted in the headline was in the Canadian paper, The National Post. It’s also legit.
The point is not that Bush is bad and others are good based on putting feet on the desk. Most presidents work very long days, and if they want to put their feet on the desk, it doesn’t bother me. But at the time this controversy arose, it was the right-wing that was trashing Clinton for the very same thing that Bush was doing.
As the gospels will tell you, it’s not so much the sin that damns a man– it’s the hypocrisy when he accuses others of what he himself does.
Phoenix Woman said
“As the gospels will tell you, it’s not so much the sin that damns a man– it’s the hypocrisy when he accuses others of what he himself does.”
Which is the perfect lead-in to the news that, after spending a week attacking the Daily Kos poll showing just how wackily extremist movement Republicans are, FOX News turns around and cites numbers from that very same poll when it wants to support a particular argument it’s making!
Charles II said
Sure. Who cares what’s true and what’s false, if you can score a point?
It’s stuff like this from the Republicans that makes it almost certain this country is headed for a crack-up.
I mean, worse than almost crashing the world economy.
Jonathan Versen said
Andrew, the Obama pic doesn’t look right to me; he seems too far from his desk, unless he’s 6’8″ or something, and it occurs to me he wouldn’t be sitting so upright if his feet were up.
Of course, having said all that I am somewhat mystified by why this is supposedly a big issue; did Obama’s tone of voice convey an “I’m being snotty and my feet are up” attitude to the party on the other end of the phone? (And couldn’t you just as easily convey such a tone with your feet on the floor? )
Charles II said
It’s a legitimate photo, Jonathan.
Just not a legitimate issue.
Lisa said
Ah yes! Feet on the desk. Such an important thing to argue about when our economy is cratering and we are still at war with terrorists. Perhaps we should be thinking about how our country is slowly but surely turning socialist, thanks to our incompetent congress and president.
Charles II said
Socialist?
That’s not what one calls it when corporations and the extremely wealthy ($100M and up) continue to enrich themselves even as the population is impoverished.
What one calls it is “conditions conducive to socialism,” since, if capitalism fails to deliver a reasonable life to the bulk of the population, they will turn to other means.
Lisa said
I call it socialist when small business owners such as myself, who provide jobs and health insurance for 40 people, pay 50% of our income in taxes. We don’t make millions, yet we are told we should “pay our fair share” and pay MORE taxes to support people who are too lazy to take care of themselves. I don’t mind my money going to the truly needy, but when I see welfare recipients who spend the funds on ridiculous things or make comments about how the “rich” folks are going to give them money, it makes my blood boil. We stress every month trying to make payroll and pay our vendors, but I guess since we are educated and made something of ourselves, we should just hand it over to those who didn’t. And it’s not just income taxes…it’s matching FICA and Medicare (which keep going up), property taxes, etc etc.
Charles II said
Well, Lisa, I’d suggest you look at a dictionary. Maldistribution of taxes is not socialism under any definition.
As for paying 50% in taxes, I’d suggest getting a better accountant. Without going into personal details, I am fairly certain that this figure is an exaggeration. The alternatives are that you are a very, very bad business person or that you are miscategorizing income.
For that matter, payroll “taxes” are actually benefits– benefits which historically working people were unable to negotiate individually from their employers and therefore banded together to demand them politically. Before Social Security, 90% of all old people were poor. Before Medicare, old people could not get health insurance and were often wiped out by illness. That’s why we have these programs– because our parents and grandparents did not want to live in fear and want in one of the richest countries on earth.
It is simply ridiculous to claim that “FICA” has been increasing. Combined payroll tax rates have been steady for years. If your payroll tax rate has been increasing, it might because you haven’t paid timely and the state is penalizing you, or because the people who control your state’s politics– the very wealthy–let the UE fund become underfunded. It is not because the general rate has increased.
As for “Medicare” increasing, it’s health care costs that are increasing. Medicare is efficient and negotiates far lower reimbursements than insurance companies do. That’s why we would like to extend those lower costs to people– even the stupid people who are opposing health insurance reform.
Forgive me if I do not sound sympathetic. I do understand that there are enormous stresses on small business. I do understand that taxes are a nuisance– I have plenty of stories of my own. But when people blame the poor (!) because they themselves are too cowardly to face up to the fact that it’s the very wealthy that have sucked this country dry, then they deserve every bad thing that happens to them.
Phoenix Woman said
It’s easier to blame the poor when they don’t share your skin color. That’s the basis of the Republican party platform, aka “the Southern Strategy”.
Lisa said
Phoenix woman, I don’t recall mentioning anything about skin color. Charles, I misstated that social security rates are going up. I meant that the limits are actually going down. And yes, we do pay close to 50% in taxes and we have a very good accountant. My point is that increasing taxes on small business owners is not the way to improve the economy. We are the ones who provide jobs for others. Why would you make it harder for the owner to make a profit by increasing taxes, thereby having to either let people go or take away benefits? It makes no sense to me. If my husband were to die, I would have to sell one of the businesses to pay the estate taxes. How in the world is that fair? The government has no right to that money! To me, redistribution of wealth is the definition of socialism. That’s exactly what the
government is doing. Going with a consumption
tax would be ideal. Have you read the book by
Neal Boortz explaining how it would work? It’s very interesting. By the way, I’m not a gung ho republican. Many of them spend taxpayers’ money just as frivolously as the democrats. I’m frustrated with the whole system.
Charles II said
Lisa says, “I meant that the limits [on Social Security taxes] are actually going down.”
Actually, for decades they’re not. They’re indexed for inflation. They did get jacked up under Reagan. (see here for wage base; here for an inflation calculator). Raising the threshhold above inflation has been proposed, but there’s no appetite for a tax hike now.
Lisa says, “And yes, we do pay close to 50% in taxes and we have a very good accountant.”
Then you are an extremely atypical small business. The OECD has studied it and they put effective US tax rates on small business at 20% for combined federal, state, and local taxes (see here for original article). So, pardon my skepticism.
“My point is that increasing taxes on small business owners is not the way to improve the economy. We are the ones who provide jobs for others.”
This is one of the arguments developed by right-wing think tanks that sounds like it makes sense, but it actually doesn’t. Business is a transaction between buyer and seller. If the buyer has no money, he can’t buy and it hurts the seller, too. If the seller has no money, she can’t maintain inventory (or do any of the many tasks necessary to run a business). So, one wants to tax both buyer and seller as little as possible.
The problem is that there’s another constraint: keeping the entire system that makes it possible to buy and sell from collapsing. The United States is the most lightly taxed developed nation on earth, with the sometimes exception of Japan. And it shows up in poorer health, worse education, declining share of R&D and patents, more corruption and a host of other statistics. We are eating our seed corn in the name of low taxation.
Lisa asks, “Why would you make it harder for the owner to make a profit by increasing taxes, thereby having to either let people go or take away benefits?”
Because, Lisa, a society–like a family– requires maintaining a balance between personal needs and the needs of others.
Because the share of the wealth of this country that goes to the top 1% has exploded over the last 30 years.
Because American family incomes have not risen significantly in real (inflation-corrected) terms in a generation, and the results are seen in a demoralized work force.
Because what small increase they have enjoyed has been because so many women have been forced into the workforce, often spending nearly as much on daycare and transportation as they receive in income.
Because the situation is not sustainable, and the crash– like the financial crisis that was a warning sign of things being out of balance– will be far more painful than the present one.
Because the current system is, like all the oligarchies of history, collapsing of its own weight. If that happens, having to sell one of your businesses will be the least of your problems.
Lisa said
So what is the answer? The “20%” tax number you cited is completely unrealistic. We have friends who are business owners and they pay like do. Perhaps it’s just talking about what the business pays, but if you are a sole proprietorship, the business and personal is taxed on the personal rates. Financial planners we have talked to say that small businesses are getting hammered. Many in our industry are going out of business. If we didn’t have to fork over so much in taxes we would have more to reinvest in the stock market…and give to charitable organizations…and hire more people… it stands now, we are
basically working to pay the government. I think the fat cats like Madoff (sp?) and the execs who pay themselves millions in bonuses when their companies are suffering are sickening. But we aren’t those people.
Charles II said
Lisa says, “if you are a sole proprietorship, the business and personal is taxed on the personal rates.”
Yeah, I know; it’s an excellent reason for incorporation, which is inexpensive and allows a high-income owner to have income of the business taxed at lower rates (or vice-versa, if that makes sense). I suggest you read the following, which shows in Section VII the differences between tax rates for sole proprietorships, S-Corps, and C-Corps. An individual earning $10M would be paying 35%, while a corporation would only pay 25.8%. And, of course, a good business owner knows how to redefine income into being capital gains, taxed at a lower rate.
But this is why one has to keep in mind what is personal and what is business income. Businesses consume resources like roads and police protection, the same as individuals. American law treats businesses as persons. They can lobby, form associations, have speech protections, etc. Since they get the rights of individuals and use resources like individuals, they also pay taxes.
And the tax rate for small business is preferential. As Table 26 in that SBA report shows, a corporation with income of less than $500,000 pays federal tax at an effective rate of 10.6%, while a corporation earning $10M pays at 25.8%.
Lisa says, “Financial planners we have talked to say that small businesses are getting hammered.”
Small business is being hammered by the costs of credit, the cost of medical care, and by the unfair competition of giant corporations. Taxes are the least of small business’s problems. Remember: if you face a tax, so does a competitor… unless they are a giant corporation like GE that is able to avoid taxes by, for example, realizing income offshore. If all companies were paying the same rate, taxes wouldn’t help or hurt… they’d just be the cost of doing business. But giant corporations don’t pay taxes at the same rate. Very often, they don’t pay them at all.
Lisa says, “If we didn’t have to fork over so much in taxes we would have more to reinvest in the stock market…and give to charitable organizations…and hire more people… ”
True. Now, I am obliged to point out that you wouldn’t have any oversight to that stock market to prevent massive fraud, not to mention roads, bridges, schools to train employees for you, and on and on. You would temporarily have more money until everything went to H—.
But I actually do agree that compared to what we pay in taxes, we get relatively little. Where do federal income taxes (corporate and personal) go? Mostly to the military. Total federal receipts excluding OASDI (Social Security) were $1053 in fiscal 2009 (Table 1.3). Defense expenditures in 2009 were $656B. This doesn’t include ca. $50B for military retirement and $50B for veterans (Table 3.3). So about $750B out of $1053B personal/corporate taxes collected were spent on the military! We ran massive deficits because we bailed out the banks and gave large tax rebates and saw tax receipts collapse as people lost their jobs. We did not run deficits because we were handing out too much money to poor people.
It is a terrible system. But it’s a terrible system because we spend a lot on the military and because our medical insurance system is so wasteful. If we spent as much on the military as other developed nations, that would save at least $350B. If we spent as much on medical care as other developed nations, we could save perhaps $100B on Medicare and Medicaid– but more important, consumers (like, for example businesses) would save another roughly $500B!
We will not make things better by cutting taxes. In fact, we’ll simply increase the deficit and eventually interest rates. The only exit fom this crisis is by ending medical insurance and defense waste and starting to invest–both privately and through government– in research, infrastructure, education, and the other economic factors known to increase the generation of wealth.