Just 18 Months Left For Bush

President Enters Homestretch Of His 8 Years In Oval Office With Much Left To Do

(CBS)  By CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller

---

A check of the calendar shows time swiftly running out for President Bush. Eighteen months from today, a new president takes the oath of office.

"We see this milestone as just another day," says Joel Kaplan, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

But he says it's "a reminder that we’ve got a lot of work to do for the country in that time."

In a CBS News interview in his West Wing office, Kaplan said Mr. Bush still has "a very ambitious agenda" he wants to pursue.

The war in Iraq is the overriding priority, but "that doesn’t stop us from focusing at the same time on all of these other very important priorities like energy and health care," says Kaplan.

The president still hopes to enact legislation to reduce U.S. consumption of gasoline by 20 percent over 10 years and to make the cost of health insurance tax deductible up to a maximum of $15,000 a year.

But this second term hasn't been kind to Mr. Bush. Despite the claims he made after his re-election that he has political capital to spend, his efforts to pass Social Security and immigration reform bills ended in failure.

Nor do his prospects for the remainder of his term in office look any more promising.

He has all but given up on reforming the U.S. tax code — which during his campaign for a second term, he called a "complicated mess."

An advisory panel he named early in 2005 submitted recommendations later that year, but since then, they've only gathered dust.

"While there is still a compelling need for overall reform of the code," says Kaplan, "I think the most important thing we can accomplish over the next 18 months in that area will be to keep the Democrats from raising taxes."

The final year and a half of the Bush presidency also presents the prospect of more investigations by and subpoenas from the Democratic Congress. But the administration hopes it won't be hog-tied by them.

Says Kaplan: "It does require the Congress and the Democratic leadership to make a choice of whether they are interested in legislation or whether they're just interested in excessive oversight and fishing expeditions that are designed not to actually accomplish anything for the American people but rather to provide political and communications advantage in some way."

Kaplan has the right to hope, but it looks like the Bush White House is headed into a major showdown with Congress over the president's claims of executive privilege. The issue could end up in the Supreme Court

Further, the 2008 presidential campaign is well under way, and the president's approval ratings are in the cellar.

"I don’t think it will affect in any way what the president tries to pursue on behalf of the American people," says Kaplan. "We’re gonna keep coming to work every day, working on those issues and working with Congress."

But should we be listening in these final 18 months for the quacks of a lame duck? Kaplan says don't waste your time.

"Maybe we'll talk on January 19, 2009, and I'll think he's a lame duck, but not before then."

[tucano2]

CBS would provide a real public service by supplying a "count-down clock" showing how many more days we must (unless Congress removes them) endure the dog and pony show known as George and ***.

[khristmaskat]

One of the posters mentioned that the 2000 election was stolen. It was, and it breaks my heart to think about how things might have been different had there been President Gore in the White House. In my heart of hearts, I do not think we could get any worse than "W." I am counting the days until this horrible president is gone.

[sjc_1]

Watch for this fascist loony toon to try something to even more criminal than he already has. There is so much evidence of criminal wrong doing with this group, a real prosecutor would not know where to start. But that is one of the major conflict of interest flaws in our system, Gonzo is AG and there you have it...the fix is in.

[stwryrch]

Iraqi Oil Law?

How much money do you get for the natural resources in the U.S.?

Unless you own or invest in a private industry that deals in natural resources, the answer is ZERO. (Besides benefits from taxes)

That is called a free market in a democratic society. The government does not control utilities.

The Iraqi Oil Law is not Bush trying to get more money off of oil, it's trying to form the foundations of a free market.

If you think the Iraqi's should control all their oil, then when do we as Americans get to control ours?

Hopefully never. I know nothing of drilling and refining oil and prefer the free market solution of experts competing for the business.


BTW, perhaps Reagan and Carter both contributed to the release of the hostages for the reasons you are all saying.

[jw218389]

Bye Bye Dumbya... 18 months isn't soon enough, but at least he's already a lame duck!

History's going to put you in with all the other "greats" - You know like Taft and Harding...

God Save America from Bush....

[down-ndirty]

down-ndirty, you are very liberal aren't you? So liberal that you would never admit that any good ideas or politicians could come from the conservative or Republican camps.

What GWB may accomplish in the next 18 months because of his arrogance and narrow world view scares me. Posted by rangerhawk1 at 05:10 PM : Jul 22, 2007
_____________________________

Well, I'm so "very liberal" that if Ron Paul happens to get the Rep nomination then Nov 08 will be the very first time I vote Rep.

I'm so "very liberal" that I didn't vote for Clinton the first time around and consider some of his policies to be very "conservative." In fact, he's been referred to as the "best Republican president we've had since Lincoln."

My problem with Dems is that none of them have any balls. And when they do, they just screw it up. My problem with the Reps is that everything they do is for the wealthy.

We so badly need a president "of the people" that if we are lucky enough to ever get one, he/she will undoubtedly inherit a disaster and be as ineffective as Carter was. Even the "great communicator" struggled with inflation, interest rates, and unemployment well into his first term. Was that Carter's fault, too? Go back to the '70s and look at Nixon's oil policy and the resulting formation of OPEC for the answer.

I agree with you 100% on what GWB may try to do

[rangerhawk]

down-ndirty, you are very liberal aren't you? So liberal that you would never admit that any good ideas or politicians could come from the conservative or Republican camps. You are determined to believe and argue that everything bad in the mideast was caused by conservatives/Republicans. Every one of your posts gives a lot of leeway to Carter/democratic politicians/liberals, but you speak of Republicans in only disparaging terms in these posts to me.

Carter stunk as President because he was naive and inept. George Bush Jr. is a horrible president because he is narrow minded, an idiot, inept, naive and just plain stupid. I give Carter that he was at least honorable. GWB only knows and cares about the rich.

What GWB may accomplish in the next 18 months because of his arrogance and narrow world view scares me.

[starleo146]

Guess what I heard? I don't know if it old news or not I just heard it, I mention it for verification.The FCC has been taking free vacations and they are paid for by the broadcasters they are suppose to oversee. No wonder our news is down in the tubes.

[starleo146]

Jackb41 at 10:37a.m.--- I do not want to be rude and you are entitled to your opinion ,but please sir/mam one of the symptoms of alzheimers is memory loss.I am in total shock over your post.He absolutely stole that election in 2000 but I will let you have your fantasy.

[down-ndirty]

I offered the opinion that the Iranians being unsure of what Reagan might do prompted them to release the hostages at the changing of the presidency. I certainly give that opinion more weight than the Iranians released the hostages because of anything Carter did. Posted by rangerhawk1 at 02:18 PM : Jul 22, 2007
________________________

There is far more to it than you allude to. The reason the hostages were taken was because the deposed dictator Shah was given sanctuary in the U.S. After the Shah died in July 1980, and the Iraq invasion of Iran in September, the Iranians were no longer interested in the hostages. So why didn't they release them then?

There's evidence, albeit insufficient for a final verdict, that the Reagan "Kitchen Cabinet" conspired with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages.

If you consider that hogwash then why weren't the hostages released after the election? After all, you've presented no evidence to support your "opinion" that the Iranians were unsure of what Reagan would do; nor could I find any in my research.

If Carter's Algiers Accords weren't instrumental they why were the hostages flown to Algiers before being taken to Germany where Carter, sent by Reagan, met them? Who signed the Algiers Accords for the U.S.?

Gaddis Smith, professor emeritus of history at Yale, said it best: "Carter inherited an impossible situation--and he and his advisors made the worst of it."