Sunday, September 14, 2003
More voices in the mainstream media are finally speaking out about the decidedly wrong turn this country has taken economically under President Bush. While Americans are still looking for jobs or have given up looking even as the business media declares us two years out of recession and into recovery, other sectors in the media have started to call a duck a duck and question the first “MBA President’s” stewardship of the economy.
As these sectors point out, a recovery can't last unless people are working and making money to spend on the goods and services being produced during that recovery. Bankrupting the federal treasury by cutting taxes then spending like a drunken sailor on poorly-planned military initiatives for a questionably-executed war on terror while also driving state governments towards larger deficits with federally ordered (but not funded) mandates, sounds like a recipe for disaster. Yet Bush's sky-high approval ratings suggest that most people seemed to either be in agreement with or (more likely) not paying attention to his actions on the economy. At least until recently that is now that his poll numbers seem to be dipping.
For an interesting take on Bush’s tax-cut policy, the central part of his plan for reviving the economy, read economist Paul Krugman's article "The Tax-Cut Con" in the September 14th New York Times Sunday magazine. Krugman lays out a strong case for why Bush is failing on domestic, and particularly, economic policy. He explores why Bush continues to push the economic theory and policy of supply-side economic stimulus via tax cuts for ailing economies championed by right-leaning academics and so-called fiscally conservative politicians despite little evidence of it ever having been effective in the past.
Scarily enough Bush continues to portray himself as a “deficit hawk” even as the federal government budgets have careened within three years from huge surpluses to $400 billion estimated annual deficits due in large part to the tax cuts and huge increases in military spending to finance the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He continues to use 9/11 and the ensuing "War on Terror" as cover and an his excuse for all of the economic blunders and missteps he has taken during his administration many of which would have happened whether 9/11 had occurred or not.
Hopefully this story continues to get coverage and perhaps prompt the American public to reevaluate their current love affair with Bush. That might be too much to ask for in the short run but the timing couldn't be better with the 2004 election just over a year away.
Tweet
As these sectors point out, a recovery can't last unless people are working and making money to spend on the goods and services being produced during that recovery. Bankrupting the federal treasury by cutting taxes then spending like a drunken sailor on poorly-planned military initiatives for a questionably-executed war on terror while also driving state governments towards larger deficits with federally ordered (but not funded) mandates, sounds like a recipe for disaster. Yet Bush's sky-high approval ratings suggest that most people seemed to either be in agreement with or (more likely) not paying attention to his actions on the economy. At least until recently that is now that his poll numbers seem to be dipping.
For an interesting take on Bush’s tax-cut policy, the central part of his plan for reviving the economy, read economist Paul Krugman's article "The Tax-Cut Con" in the September 14th New York Times Sunday magazine. Krugman lays out a strong case for why Bush is failing on domestic, and particularly, economic policy. He explores why Bush continues to push the economic theory and policy of supply-side economic stimulus via tax cuts for ailing economies championed by right-leaning academics and so-called fiscally conservative politicians despite little evidence of it ever having been effective in the past.
Scarily enough Bush continues to portray himself as a “deficit hawk” even as the federal government budgets have careened within three years from huge surpluses to $400 billion estimated annual deficits due in large part to the tax cuts and huge increases in military spending to finance the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He continues to use 9/11 and the ensuing "War on Terror" as cover and an his excuse for all of the economic blunders and missteps he has taken during his administration many of which would have happened whether 9/11 had occurred or not.
Hopefully this story continues to get coverage and perhaps prompt the American public to reevaluate their current love affair with Bush. That might be too much to ask for in the short run but the timing couldn't be better with the 2004 election just over a year away.
