Jeb Bush on Budget & Economy
Republican FL Governor; V.P. prospect
Bipartisan compromise to reduce the deficit significantly
Jeb Bush seems to be bucking the trend. He is seeking to return the party to its ideological moorings--toward the centrism of his grandfather. Even before the GOP's ignominious defeat in November, Jeb was offering tough love to his party, suggesting that
Republicans stand up to Grover Norquist and craft a bipartisan compromise to reduce the deficit significantly. But will Republicans listen? There are many reasons to believe they won't.
Hence, in evaluating Jeb's prescriptions for fiscal responsibility, today's Republicans should recall the Bushes' past political palm reading. While Jeb's prescriptions are in the party's long-term interest, they will be difficult to execute, given the
strength of the party's coalition members.
Can Jeb sway a resistant party base? It's quite possible: His family's odyssey has reflected the party's shifts for 50 years, and he's uniquely positioned to convince his peers.
Source: Jeff Smith, CNN Opinion, "Sway the GOP on taxes"
, Dec 11, 2012
Mortgage bankers got us into this mess; they should solve it
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush spoke before attendees of the Mortgage Bankers Association conference in Chicago. He advised advocacy: "Advocate and persuade. There is real hostility toward business in Washington. There's not a lot of love.
In those kinds of circumstances, most business organizations go into a fetal position. That doesn't work," he said. Bush spoke against turning a blind eye, and instead encouraged proactivity.
"The problem that got us into this mess was the
real estate problem, but there is very little going on to solve the real estate problems," he said. "Who better to advocate a policy to get us out of this mess? Why not defend your positions in the marketplace of ideas?
Business has gotten way too timid. The natural inclination is to cower. I would encourage you to stand up."
Source: Elizabeth Ecker in Reverse Mortgage Daily
, Oct 12, 2011
Florida budget grew by 27% during Bush's terms
In June 2006, the state had 43.6% more spending than when Bush took office and 46.5% more personal income. The state's total budget grew by more than 27% in constant dollars between 1999 when Bush took office and 2005.
Ironically, this performance disappointed the governor's small government constituency and led some to call him a "big-government Republican."
At the end of his term in 2006, the conservative Cato Institute criticized him for having overseen "explosive growth" and gave him a grade of "D" for controlling spending.
The Bush tax strategies facilitated his "starve the beast" spending policy and gave him an opportunity to make the kinds of choices in funding state government that he desired.
Source: Aggressive Conservatism in Florida, by Robert Crew, p.106
, Dec 11, 2009
Bank bailouts were needed to avoid financial unraveling
Q: Should McCain have opposed the bailout?
A: I don't know. Maybe if he had opposed the bailout based on some actual principles he could express, that would have shown leadership.
Q: You have defended the early bailouts, those implemented by your
A: If there wasn't any support, given the intricate nature of all these credit-default swaps, you could have had an unraveling of the financial system. So I'm not sure there was another choice. There may have been a different means of doing it.
Source: Tucker Carlson interview of Jeb Bush in Esquire
, Aug 1, 2009
OpEd: 1990 S&L bailout included $4M to Jeb
Jeb and his partner Armondo Codina purchased 1390 Brickell Avenue, a downtown office building, in 1984. The two found an insurance company to lend them $7 million, and J. Edward Houston put up another $4.6 million, borrowed from Broward Federal Savings
Broward , having made a number of these sweetheart loans, collapsed in the national savings and loan crisis. Federal regulators negotiated a deal that Jeb and Codina keep the building by closing out the $4.6 million Broward liability for a
mere $505,000. The two partners had to pay $1.3 million in income tax on the forgiven loan.
The question here is not whether Jeb turned a profit. The question is the 7-figure contribution that US taxpayers made to Jeb's net worth. How do we know
there was a 7-figure contribution? Because Jeb and Codina paid $1.3 million in income tax on it. Asked if they were aware that the funds for the repayment of the Broward loans came from the taxpayers, Jeb phrased it, "Helllllll, no. Absolutely not."
Source: America's Next Bush, by S.V. Date, p. 89-91
, Feb 15, 2007
1988: Lost $4M in taxpayer bailout of failed Savings & Loan
Jeb Bush and one of his business partners, Cuban-American developer Armando Codina, borrowed money from Broward Federal Savings and Loan in Sunrise, Florida for an office building.
When the thrift collapsed in 1988 with $285 million in bad loans, federal regulators discovered the Bush-Codina partnership had defaulted on a $4.6 million loan.
According to the negotiated deal with the government, Bush and Codina wrote a check for $505,000 to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the government agency in
turn allowed the two men to retain possession of their office building while taxpayers absorbed the $4 million loss.
Source: Fortunate Son, by J.H.Hatfield, p.111
, Aug 17, 1999
Supports constitutional balanced budget amendment
Q: Would you support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring an annual balanced federal budget?
Q: Do you support providing immunity from civil liability to persons who are participating in the process of government?
Source: 1998 Florida Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test
, Nov 1, 1998
Bankruptcy reform: limit Chapter 7; protect states' role.
Bush adopted the National Governors Association policy:
The Governors are particularly concerned that bankruptcy reform legislation address the following issues:
Source: NGA Economic Development Policy EDC-21: Bankruptcy Reform 01-NGA2 on Feb 15, 2001
- Prevent Chapter 7 Use by Those with the Ability to Pay: Present bankruptcy law does not prevent use of Chapter 7 by those with ability to repay, nor does it require that debtors use Chapter 13, which would require them to repay creditors what the debtor can afford. The Governors strongly support federal efforts to prevent debtors from using Chapter 7 when they are financially able to pay some or all of their unsecured debts.
- Encourage Payment of Domestic Support Obligations: Bankruptcy interferes significantly with states’ ability to assist citizens owed domestic support and to collect unpaid domestic support owed them. The Governors strongly encourage Congress to ensure that any federal bankruptcy reform requires that domestic support obligations have the highest possible repayment priority, that all domestic support obligations be nondischargeable,
and that commencement of bankruptcy not prevent the continued collection of child and other support obligations.
- Give State Claims Parity with Federal Claims in Bankruptcy: Today, bankruptcy rightly gives certain preferences in payment to federal claims against the bankruptcy estate, but similar treatment is not always accorded state claims. The Governors strongly support congressional efforts to reform the treatment of state claims in bankruptcy to provide parity of treatment with federal claims.
- Protect the State Role: The Governors oppose efforts to preempt state authority to determine exemptions under state bankruptcy law. Currently, debtors have a right to choose between federal and state exemptions. The Governors support efforts to shape bankruptcy reform policy that protects the rights of states to determine their own standards instead of having uniform federal regulations imposed without regard for individual state needs.
Uphold commitments to states before other spending.
Bush adopted the National Governors Association position paper:
The Issue The major budget issue will be over the surplus and how big of a surplus there will be. How much will be dedicated to paying down the national debt, how much to tax cuts, how much to increase defense spending, what to do about key discretionary spending programs, and whether and how to change key entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security? How these decisions are made could have significant impacts on the federal-state partnership, especially as they affect vital health and human services programs. What will happen to funding for priority state domestic discretionary programs for the federal fiscal year? When will Congress act?
NGA’s Position Before considering new spending initiatives or tax cuts, the federal government must first uphold its current commitments to the states.
Source: National Governors Association "Issues / Positions" 01-NGA8 on Sep 14, 2001
Page last updated: Mar 19, 2014