August 14, 2003
Bush Fiscal Policy Worst In 200 Years?
As President Bush enjoys his month-long vacation in Crawford, Texas, punctuated by the occasional fundraising gala, many Americans are still looking for jobs from which to take that vacation.
Bob Herbert writes and quotes in The New York Times (registration required):
It’s too bad George Akerlof wasn’t at the meeting. Mr. Akerlof, a 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, bluntly declared on Tuesday that “the Bush fiscal policy is the worst policy in the last 200 years.” Speaking at a press conference arranged by the Economic Policy Institute, Mr. Akerlof, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said, “Within 10 years, we’re going to pay a serious price for such irresponsibility.”
And George Akerlof isn't alone.
Also participating in the institute's press conference was Robert Solow, an economist and professor emeritus at M.I.T. who is also a Nobel laureate. He assailed the Bush tax cuts as "redistributive in intent and redistributive in effect.""There has been a dissipation of the huge budget surplus," he said, "and all we have to show for that is the city of Baghdad."
But 10 years down the road is a long time for bad policy to shake out. Is there any immediate fallout?
Ralph Plumb, president of the Union Rescue Mission on L.A.'s skid row, said his agency, traditionally a haven for homeless men with drug and alcohol problems, is providing shelter for more and more "intact" families. Their problems are not the result of drug or alcohol abuse, or mental impairment. They simply have no money. Forty percent of the people at the mission are there "purely due to economic issues," he said.-- snip --
"Homelessness in major cities is escalating," the article said, "as more laid-off workers already living paycheck to paycheck wind up on the streets or in shelters."
That story ran one day after a front-page Wall Street Journal article that spelled out how sweet just one of the Bush tax cuts has been for those in the upper brackets: "The federal tax cut, which slashed the tax rate on dividends and prompted many companies to increase their payouts, is proving to be a boon for some corporate executives who are reaping millions in after-tax gains."
It has always mystified me to see ads like those of the recent H&R Block campaign which carried the tagline, "It's your money." It certainly is, and it's also your house and your children that are protected by the police and fire departments that are paid for by your money, and your neighbor's money.
There's some odd disconnect between people's understanding that taxes actually pay for something--services. We may disagree on which services take priority, but to simply cut taxes because "it's your money" at the expensive of functioning schools in Oregon, a police and fire fightering force in NYC (they're "heroes," rememeber?), college tuition aid in Albany, jobs in LA, or maintaining hazard pay for US soldiers in Iraq, seems to be an odd tradeoff.
Posted by jeremy at August 14, 2003 12:03 PMSo Bush shouldn’t have cut taxes and then everything would be rosey? People like you and George Akerlof, just haven’t figured it out yet. Things cycle. One man or adminstration doesn’t determine our fiscal well being, even though they would have us to believe so.
Posted by: Brian at August 14, 2003 02:30 PM
Let’s rasie taxes, re-invest in America and pull up our own bootstraps. Whadda ya say?
I am ready to do my share. I am sick of people who are not willing to pay their sahre. Bush should be impeached for his class warfare.
Robbie
Posted by: Robbie D. at August 14, 2003 03:08 PMRobbie D.: Woohoo. Go Communism go! While we’re at it, we should work according to our means and get paid according to needs. And we should make sure that all the poor people have their own houses (we’ll bump those pesky bourgeois out of their high-rise condos). Oh yeah and we should send all the CEOs to Gitmo because they are the real terrorists. GAH!
/sarcasm
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at August 14, 2003 03:20 PMI should be getting $200 from Bush’s Tax cut and I am going to donate to one of the campaigns. That will be my personal plan to stimulate the economy.
I also just might buy Al “Fair and Ballanced’ Franken’s new book.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at August 14, 2003 03:22 PMGod the Commie-bating is getting really old. I mean it is 2003 don’t you have any newer insults for Democrats than just calling them Commies. I mean that is so.. 1950s
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at August 14, 2003 03:24 PMWell if you read a lot of Robbies comments I think one could logically surmise that he is a socialist at the very least and because Mccarthy-ism happened in the 1950s and was a bit extreme, that does not make it totally invalid. Is it not possible that Robbie is a communist? I am not calling him one but niether was Steven, he was being sarcastic. I think it is also important to remember your comments about Schwarzenegger when you pointed out that his father was a nazi. Fair is fair after all.
The nazi analogy doesn’t really work though because before it was the nazi party, it was the German Socialist Party. Also Hitler ran a Socialist nationalized economy.
Every leftist should read Marx’s communist manifesto. It reads like a speech from Dianne Feinstein on free healthcare for the masses and “affordable housing”. Has anyone here read that book? How about Chomsky’s “Manufacturing consent”? Chomsky is a really big favorite amoung liberals after all and is a journey into madness that is quite entertaining.
Posted by: pete at August 14, 2003 03:38 PMPete, I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and it’s actually very interesting because of the writing style and stringent adherence to the principles of Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric. I could see how influential it could be and also how no one has ever actually implemented his design for socialism/communism in a pure form. From my perspective, it’s one of those “know your enemy” books, along with Mein Kampf and Utopia (which was actually a benevolent dictatorship).
As I see it, there are two extremist forces in the world of social politics, they tyranny of the mob (the non-thinkers or quick-thinkers) and the tyranny of the elite, and a whole lot of people in the middle who are wondering which one is right. And when they team up is when the worst of society has been unveiled (Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia).
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at August 14, 2003 03:54 PMYou know Steven, the more I read what you have to say, the more I like it. Although I sometimes disagree you always seem to make some compelling points. I would agree with your assertion that “the tyranny of the mob (the non-thinkers or quick-thinkers) and the tyranny of the elite” is valid, it really gets beyond what politics in general is about. There is something to be said though, for standards and labels as they relate to politics because they do identify people who follow a certain philosophy, while these socio-political philosophies may very slightly from person to person they do exist and it is fair to point them out sometimes.
Posted by: pete at August 14, 2003 04:02 PMWe have really gotten off topic though, I want to point out that because ONE Nobel Lauriate has announced his opposition to Bush’s economic policy and tax cuts it does not mean that his policies are wrong. Most economists are strict supply siders and believe in what Bush is doing. Here is some evidence to that effect…
“As Bush Tax Plan’s Detractors Tout Opposition from Economic Community, 115 Economists (with 3 Nobel Laureates) Voice SUPPORT For President’s Dividend Tax Cut”
http://www.ntu.org/news_room/press_releases/P0302economistletter.php3
Here is a letter from 200 economists and (2 Nobel Laureates) to Bush urging him to oppose the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s so-called “harmful tax competition” initiative…
http://www.ntu.org/news_room/press_releases/P0302economistletter.php3
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/ltr/economists/economists.shtml
Read it, it is short and lists all of thier names.
I’m less amazed at how the Bush Administration runs away from its responsibility than by how the Republican members of this forum run away from their responsibility.
Bush could not have run this country into the ground without your support.
We have no friends. Our currency is becoming worthless. Our sovereignty is threatened by the fact that our debt is held by foreigners.
And all the GOP’ers here can do is call those who point this out “Communists.”
Millions of Americans are refusing to think, refusing to open their minds, and blindly obeying a mad policy of pure selfishness and greed.
This policy threatens not just you, but your children and grandchildren.
You are turning us into Argentina.
And as to the charge of “Communists,” that’s just what Argentine juntas charged when they took over.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at August 14, 2003 08:01 PMDana: Easy man easy…Noone called anyone a communist. What we were doing is exploring the idea of language and whether or not some labels are valid or not. I do get your point though. We were having what I thought was a really good discussion about it. Maybe you could read those comments again and perhaps re-consider. I feel that it is something that needs to be talked about.
Posted by: pete at August 14, 2003 11:35 PMAnyone want to challenge Bush’s economic policies NOW after the links I posted?
Posted by: pete at August 15, 2003 11:55 PMIf you read the first link, the economists actually oppose Bush’s overall economic policy of massive structural deficits, while agreeing with only the cut in the dividend tax. The other link doesn’t say anything about the Bush tax cuts, but condemns protectionism, which is Bush administration policy at least for steel.
Bush fiscal policy is irresponsible and dishonest.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 16, 2003 11:49 AMPete wrtoe: “Noone called anyone a communist. “
What? Did you read the thread? Or is that the Bush in you. If you don’t like the truth, just deny it.
Posted by: Robbie D at August 19, 2003 05:18 PM
Pete,
Absolutely, I would love to challenge Bush’s policy. Those links were fuel. First of all, the letter to Congress was not expressing approval of Bush’s economic policy, but more like offering further instructions on how to make these tax cuts work.
The first thing they pointed out was that in order to stimulate economic growth, federal spending must be greatly reduced. They also pointed out that much of the increased spending had nothing to do with terrorism. I don’t see any sign of Bush reducing spending, actually quite the contrary.
In addition to this, they mentioned that the tax laws now seem very unstable, which causes low confidence, as people don’t know when the taxes will change, so they say to make them permanent.
Also, they start talking about how people pay more for taxes than food, shelter, and transportation combined, so taxes need to be reduced further. To remedy this, they say that corporate dividend double-taxation should be done away with. I don’t see how that will help most people’s tax burdens be lowered, so it is apparent that this letter was written by Republicans.
OK, so we have a letter, written probably by Republicans, including Nobel Laureates, obviously in response to the earlier statements by other Nobel Laureates, and this letter is telling Bush what he is doing wrong. Sorry, but I don’t see how this is supposed to prove anything.
Nick
Posted by: Nicholas at August 24, 2003 03:09 AMIsn’t the NTU the guys who Reagan used as justification for his tax policy? The NTU is a right wing (bipartisan, my a**) supply side economics think tank.
Then again freedomandprosperity.org is the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which is a lobbying organization funded by forture 100 companies dedicated to removing all regulations on commerce whatsoever. The policies they have lobbied successfully for include rules that allow US companies to offshore and expatriate (move central operations to places like Bermuda to avoid paying taxes) and many other policies that are pro-business and anti-people. They are affliated with the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation and many others… not exactly the “fair and unbiased” team of policy analysts.
Posted by: Ken at November 4, 2003 02:46 PM
