Economic summit fell short because it was designed to

President Bush was re-elected primarily because he was a wartime president and a majority of voters were more comfortable with the incumbent than his challenger in that context.
Clearly there were other factors involved -- including that amorphous phrase moral values -- but the overriding one was national security.
It is safe to say that the one thing President Bush did not promise to do was increase the federal debt, and had he, it's certain he would not have been re-elected.
And so we find last week's economic summit at the White House more than a little disconcerting.
The very least the president could have done was brought together a representative sampling of the best and brightest. He could have gone through the motions of holding a conference that was geared toward finding the best way of addressing the nation's most pressing economic challenges, including the need to reinforce the dollar and address the unfunded liabilities of the Social Security system.
Instead, the White House stacked the conference with cheerleaders -- various and sundry businessmen and academics who were more than inclined to spout nothing but the party line.
No tough questions
So when the president proposed "saving" Social Security by allowing younger workers to divert some of their payroll taxes to private investments, no one questioned the wisdom of covering the inevitable shortfall by borrowing between $800 billion to $2 trillion over 10 years.
And no one pointed out that when Bush pledges to cut the federal budget deficit, a record $413 billion in fiscal 2004, in half in five years, that even if he met the goal, the federal deficit would grow by another $1.4 trillion during that time.
And no one pointed out that the economy still has not restored the number of jobs that it supported in January, 2001, when Bush took office.
And during a week when it was announced that the U.S. trade deficit hit a monthly record of $55.5 billion in October, no one questioned how the president planned reverse the flood of dollars to other economies, especially that of China. For the record, Bush told reporters that the trade deficit was "easy to resolve. People can buy more United States products if they're worried about the trade deficit."
While we would agree that consumer choices have indeed caused the trade deficit to balloon, it is incumbent on a president to do more than tell people to buy less (especially since this is the same president who has consistently urged Americans to buy more).
The nation's economy has not been the president's strong suit. While it is true that he inherited a weak economy and that the nation was rocked by the attacks of 9/11 and by various corporate scandals, those economic shocks are now in the past. The president is going to have to come up with a solid plan for the future, and last week's conference was not an indication that the president is prepared to do so.