Pathetic WSJ Reaction; Classic Ad Hominem
WSJ responds to some of the Paul O'Neill information...by saying he's just a baby, a big fat ego-driven CEO...unlike the other ego-driven CEO types in the administration.
That was then and this is now. It now turns out Mr. O'Neill has talked nearly daily for the last year with Mr. Suskind, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal, who has now written a new explosive book on President Bush's first term. Mr. O'Neill also turned over to Mr. Suskind a minute-by-minute accounting of his time in office along with CD-ROMs containing 19,000 pages of documents he took with him from Washington.
Mr. O'Neill may have been a team player during his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations, but his tenure as the successful head of Alcoa, the aluminum company, seems to have instilled in him "CEO disease," the inability for someone who runs a large enterprise to adapt and subordinate a large ego to the interests of a group.
Far from being a truth-teller, Mr. O'Neill comes across in Mr. Suskind's book as a vengeful Lone Ranger, someone bitter because his advice was spurned but who stubbornly chose to stay in the job anyway. "He could have resigned quietly on principle," one White House aide told me. "Instead we had to push him out."
Mr. O'Neill may like to see himself as a contemporary Cyrus Vance, who in 1980 left as Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State over principled disagreements on foreign policy. But instead he resembles Don Regan, the temperamental White House chief of staff who, after President Reagan fired him, went on to write a tell-all book embarrassing his old boss with revelations about Nancy Reagan's fondness for astrologers. The book made Mr. Regan look small and it didn't do much damage to Mr. Reagan's reputation. The same will be true of Mr. O'Neill's poison-pen recollections.
Not one word in their editorial about whether the circumstances he's describing are actually true or not. Dear WSJ: Is Paul lying? Do you care to address the accusations directly?
No, they don't. And neither will any other conservative commentator. Well, maybe Buckethead.
on
| § 4
§ 4 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I read Fund's editorial, and
I read Fund's editorial, and what he said jibes with the things I heard when I worked at Treasury - at least as regards to O'Neil's personality. O'Neil's portrait of the administration doesn't jibe with other reports from inside, even Bob Woodward's of the months right after 9/11.
Part of a cabinet official's job is to support the agenda of the President, and this O'Neil didn't do, which was why he was canned over a year ago. Some of what he is referring to as "ideology" is just the beliefs of the president and other figures in the administration - especially on tax cuts - beliefs that are shared by many others, including me.
As for the WMD stuff, O'Neil wasn't part of the war cabinet, and his role was limited to tracking down terrorist funding. He wouldn't have necessarily been in the loop for much of the rest. The Time article also says:
"There is no effort to offer an opposing analysis of O'Neill's portrayal of his tenure. The book lists his gaffeshe ridiculed Wall Street traders, accused Democrats of being socialists and disparaged business lobbyists who were seeking a tax credit that the President supportedbut it portrays these moments as examples of brave truth telling in a town that doesn't like it. White House aides have a different view: It wasn't just that O'Neill was impolitic, they say; his statements had real consequencesroiling currency markets and Wall Street. What O'Neill would call rigor, Bush officials say, was an excessive fussiness that led to policy gridlock and sniping within the economic team. "
I'd have to see the material in more depth than the Time magazine article do have a real opinion, but it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility that someone fired from a high level post has an ax to grind.
Here is an interesting take
Here is an interesting take">http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleT… on part of O'Neil's contentions via Drudge.
Agreed...the book, due out
Agreed...the book, due out tomorrow, will be a good read.
If you agree with tax cuts, maybe you'd like to answer any of these questions:
1. What is a sustainable deficit level for the federal government, in total debt terms, and in percentage of GDP terms?
2. What growth level will support the deficit goal you indicate?
3. What cuts would you make the accomplish that deficit goal?
4. What percentage of government revenue can be safely used for debt servicing?
"Sustainable" deficit levels
"Sustainable" deficit levels vary - depending on the strength of the economy and the world political scene. What we have now is sustainable, especially considering that the economy is by all indicators well on its way into another boom period.
It's better to have lower deficits, all things being equal. But, they are not evil incarnate. Paying down the debt is also a decent thing to consider, but not necessarily the most important.
Personally, I'd gut a lot of programs, especially the new prescription drug benefit. That's $400 bn (very conservative estimate, IMO) right there.
I'd also stop the automatic indexing of all budgets to inflation. Make'm beg every year, I say.
I'd be settle for a 1-2-1 ratio in gov't spending: defense-other-debt servicing.
And I'd cut taxes again, too. Government doesn't need that money anyway.