Reckoning: The Economic Consequences Of Mr. Bush

[FourScore]

Source: Vanity Fair

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page...

...Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.

But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000...

...In breathtaking disregard for the most basic rules of fiscal propriety, the administration continued to cut taxes even as it undertook expensive new spending programs and embarked on a financially ruinous “war of choice” in Iraq. A budget surplus of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (G.D.P.), which greeted Bush as he took office, turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent in the space of four years. The United States had not experienced a turnaround of this magnitude since the global crisis of World War II.



Read more: http://www.countercurrents.org/stiglitz261107.htm

---

Read it and weep.

[truthisfreedom]

1. As important as this article is, I don't believe it falls into the category "LBN."

[FourScore]

2. I was on the fence about that.

I just posted it in GD, but I'm not real sure how to get rid of it here. I'm sure the mods will catch up with it. LBN is an intimidating forum to say the least. Thanks for your comment.

[donheld]

4. It's Heart Breaking News

Even if it isn't "LBN."

[GOPNotForMe]

3. I read that article last night in bed.

It was worse than any nightmare I could have had!

[nbcouch]

5. The author charitably

gives BushCo credit for (1) not starting a recessions and (2)
a low unemployment rate, but in fact credit is neither earned
nor deserved for either item. While it is true that GDP has
not shrunk and that the nationwide unemployment rate has
stayed low, these macroeconomic indicators paint a distorted
picture of the state of the US economy.

The GDP growth during the BushCo reign has been heavily skewed
in favor of corporate profits and the incomes of the very
wealthy. Wages for the vast majority of workers have been
stagnant at best. Most of us have not benefited at all from
the BushCo economy.

The national unemployment rate has always been a problematic
measure of economic health, but in recent years this has been
even more the case. The declining participation rate in the
labor force is in large part responsible for the unemployment
rate staying relatively low. Some months ago the NY Times
published an excellent and eye-opening article on the millions
of people who have simply dropped out of the labor force and
are living off of credit cards, home equity loans, government
assistance, or the kindness of family and friends. People who
aren't actively seeking work are not accounted for by the
"official" unemployment rate, and this segment of
the population is huge and growing.