Liberals take Bush's few foibles and multiply them
Published in The Tennessean, February 7, 2010
Liberals take Bush's few foibles and multiply them
by Richard J. Grant
In January 2001 when George W. Bush was sworn in as president, it probably never occurred to him that his administration’s economic policy would become the new standard of excellence for liberal Democrats. All of Bush's fiscal excesses, and there were many, are now the established benchmarks of liberal best practice. It is as if he has taken his place in history as the giant upon whose shoulders liberals now stand stretching out toward new adventures in profligacy.
Of course liberals won't express it that way: they really can't quite see Bush as one of their own. But they are very quick to use him as justification for their own excesses. Not having a coherent theory of how the world works, they are unable to distinguish between what is a relevant "fact" and what is not. Without a coherent defense of their proposals, and unwilling to admit that they are merely buying votes, they fall back on their childlike retort, "Well George Bush did it too!"
President Bush entrenched the US government in the prescription drug business. Then the Obama administration attempted to up the ante with a takeover of the entire medical industry. It turned out to be a hostile takeover with stakeholders pushing the administration back into a still-simmering stalemate.
President Bush sought favor with certain groups by trying to make home ownership easy for all. Even though this turned out badly by contributing to an unsustainable housing boom, the Obama administration climbed right in with the same kinds of wasteful and disruptive policies, treating symptoms rather than letting the market rid itself of policy-inflicted distortions.
With a bit more luck, the Bush administration might have finished its term with an economic record that was relatively unremarkable. It would have been remembered for the breadth and magnitude of its response to the terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat to our security.
But economic reality caught up. The conjunction of its fiscal and regulatory policies with a low-interest-rate policy led to the inevitable crack-up of the boom. Now the Bush administration will be remembered more for its panicked and excessive response to the resulting financial crisis.
The Bush response was, ironically, "conservative" in the old sense of the word. It was a flight to the familiar, an attempt to preserve the old order. But it was not conservative in the modern, classical liberal, sense. Neither were the policies that led to the crisis.
With the Obama administration now attempting to surpass the worst of the Bush economic policies, we can't help but notice its aversion to the best. Why is the administration happy to allow some of the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011? This cannot be healthy.
They insist that it will affect only the "rich" – because that’s more emotive than "high-income." Marginal income tax rates for individuals with incomes over $200,000 will rise from 33% to 36%. For married couples earning more than $250,000 the rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%. They will also see their capital gains and dividends taxed at 20% rather than the current 15%.
This might sound like an exclusive group, but it will include a huge number of small business owners who will be left with fewer net resources for production and hiring. These are the very people that President Barack Obama will now pretend to be helping with other interventions.
Exhibiting a belief that anything business can do the government can do better, the Obama administration is now on the hunt for revenue from whatever source, and no one will be unaffected. This will be done in the name of reducing the deficit, while increasing spending (and the deficit) faster still. Federal spending is projected to be $3.72 trillion in fiscal 2010, and to rise to $3.834 trillion a year later. This is more than a quarter of our economy.
As President Bush used to say, "There will be consequences."
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a scholar at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2010
Liberals take Bush's few foibles and multiply them
by Richard J. Grant
In January 2001 when George W. Bush was sworn in as president, it probably never occurred to him that his administration’s economic policy would become the new standard of excellence for liberal Democrats. All of Bush's fiscal excesses, and there were many, are now the established benchmarks of liberal best practice. It is as if he has taken his place in history as the giant upon whose shoulders liberals now stand stretching out toward new adventures in profligacy.
Of course liberals won't express it that way: they really can't quite see Bush as one of their own. But they are very quick to use him as justification for their own excesses. Not having a coherent theory of how the world works, they are unable to distinguish between what is a relevant "fact" and what is not. Without a coherent defense of their proposals, and unwilling to admit that they are merely buying votes, they fall back on their childlike retort, "Well George Bush did it too!"
President Bush entrenched the US government in the prescription drug business. Then the Obama administration attempted to up the ante with a takeover of the entire medical industry. It turned out to be a hostile takeover with stakeholders pushing the administration back into a still-simmering stalemate.
President Bush sought favor with certain groups by trying to make home ownership easy for all. Even though this turned out badly by contributing to an unsustainable housing boom, the Obama administration climbed right in with the same kinds of wasteful and disruptive policies, treating symptoms rather than letting the market rid itself of policy-inflicted distortions.
With a bit more luck, the Bush administration might have finished its term with an economic record that was relatively unremarkable. It would have been remembered for the breadth and magnitude of its response to the terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat to our security.
But economic reality caught up. The conjunction of its fiscal and regulatory policies with a low-interest-rate policy led to the inevitable crack-up of the boom. Now the Bush administration will be remembered more for its panicked and excessive response to the resulting financial crisis.
The Bush response was, ironically, "conservative" in the old sense of the word. It was a flight to the familiar, an attempt to preserve the old order. But it was not conservative in the modern, classical liberal, sense. Neither were the policies that led to the crisis.
With the Obama administration now attempting to surpass the worst of the Bush economic policies, we can't help but notice its aversion to the best. Why is the administration happy to allow some of the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011? This cannot be healthy.
They insist that it will affect only the "rich" – because that’s more emotive than "high-income." Marginal income tax rates for individuals with incomes over $200,000 will rise from 33% to 36%. For married couples earning more than $250,000 the rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%. They will also see their capital gains and dividends taxed at 20% rather than the current 15%.
This might sound like an exclusive group, but it will include a huge number of small business owners who will be left with fewer net resources for production and hiring. These are the very people that President Barack Obama will now pretend to be helping with other interventions.
Exhibiting a belief that anything business can do the government can do better, the Obama administration is now on the hunt for revenue from whatever source, and no one will be unaffected. This will be done in the name of reducing the deficit, while increasing spending (and the deficit) faster still. Federal spending is projected to be $3.72 trillion in fiscal 2010, and to rise to $3.834 trillion a year later. This is more than a quarter of our economy.
As President Bush used to say, "There will be consequences."
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a scholar at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2010