Bush’s 100 days

In the eleven weeks between election day and the inauguration of Barack Obama, President George W. Bush is locking in his legacy.

I don’t mean the status of forces agreement with the Iraqis.

I mean the hundreds of billions — and possibly trillions — of dollars in financial commitments that he and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson have been making.

Bail-out promises have been handed out like Halloween candy to some of the biggest financial institutions in America.

Which means that America’s taxpayers will be wearing cement shoes fitted for them by Mr. Bush for a long time to come.

Should the boat tip over, the plunge to the bottom will be very quick indeed.

Everyone agrees that some sort of bailout is needed. The question is whether the team currently in the White House possesses the intellect, the rigor and the ideological flexibility to do it right.

Are the proper safeguards in place? Do we know how the bailout money will be spent? Or is Wall Street simply the latest version of Baghdad or New Orleans: a money pit with zero accountability?

All of which raises a more fundamental question: Should the transition period be shortened?

I’ve always been a big fan of longer transitions. The holiday between the campaign season and actual governance seemed to offer a kind of cooling-off period.

It was a chance for the bitter sword of politics to give way to the plowshare business of running a nation.

In more practical terms, those eleven weeks gave the incoming President-elect a chance to rest and gather his new team.

But the Bush administration has tested many institutions of American life during the last eight years.

His performance during this crisis has raised serious questions about the wisdom of allowing a lame duck to lead for so long.

Many Americans thought the long wait to November 4th was unendurably tense. Now we wait with baited breath for January 20th.

What do you think? Comments below.