Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Presidential Job Creation

I ran across this old blog post about presidential job creation by Paul Krugman and I thought it was time for an update. We all know that politicians are the ones who create jobs in America, right? Right?!

Well, here is a graph of job creation under four presidential administrations (with Reagan/Bush counted as one to make the graph easier to read).

Click on the graph to see a full-sized version.

Obama - solid blue
Bush, Jr. - solid red
Clinton - speckled blue
Reagan/Bush - speckled red

It's a good thing Barack Obama is saving jobs, because he sure isn't creating them!

In all seriousness, Americans drastically overestimate the influence presidents have on the economy. However, people who are inclined to view everything through a political lens will mistakenly think this graph has actual meaning.

Monday, February 23, 2009

President Obama to cut deficit in half by 2013? I say B.S.

President Obama is now repeating one of President Bush's false promises.

From the Financial Times:
Barack Obama will this week set the goal of halving the budget deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, while pushing ahead aggressively on healthcare reform, climate change and education.

His first budget, released on Thursday, will show the deficit falling to $533bn (€415bn, £369bn) by fiscal year 2013, compared with an inherited deficit aides estimate at $1,300bn.
From President Bush's 2004 State of the Union speech:
And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayer dollars. In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.
Keep in mind that cutting the deficit in half is far different than cutting the national debt in half. Cutting the deficit in half means that government spending will still be contributing to the national debt. In order to reduce the national debt, we need to have a budget surplus, not a deficit.

The $533 billion deficit that Obama hopes for would rank among one of the worst deficits experienced under George W. Bush. In other words, it would be no great accomplishment. Even so, I think Obama is unlikely to achieve it.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

President Bush Addresses Nation Regarding Bailout Plan

In a first for his administration, President Bush went 15 minutes without lying.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

The lessons from President Bush's illegal domestic spying

From Daniel Solove:
Future presidents can learn a lot from all this — do exactly what the Bush Administration did! If the law holds you back, don't first go to Congress and try to work something out. Secretly violate that law, and then when you get caught, staunchly demand that Congress change the law to your liking and then immunize any company that might have illegally cooperated with you. That's the lesson. You spit in Congress's face, and they'll give you what you want.

The past eight years have witnessed a dramatic expansion of Executive Branch power, with a rather anemic push-back from the Legislative and Judicial Branches. We have extensive surveillance on a mass scale by agencies with hardly any public scrutiny, operating mostly in secret, with very limited judicial oversight, and also with very minimal legislative oversight. Most citizens know little about what is going on, and it will be difficult for them to find out, since everything is kept so secret. Secrecy and accountability rarely go well together. The telecomm lawsuits were at least one way that citizens could demand some information and accountability, but now that avenue appears to be shut down significantly with the retroactive immunity grant. There appear to be fewer ways for the individual citizen or citizen advocacy groups to ensure accountability of the government in the context of national security.

That's the direction we're heading in — more surveillance, more systemic government monitoring and data mining, and minimal oversight and accountability — with most of the oversight being very general, not particularly rigorous, and nearly always secret — and with the public being almost completely shut out of the process. But don't worry, you shouldn't get too upset about all this. You probably won't know much about it. They'll keep the dirty details from you, because what you don't know can't hurt you.
The big question is why have the Democrats in Congress allowed themselves to be such pushovers for the Bush administration? Even Barry Obama has allowed himself to be a lapdog for President Bush.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

The causes of our crappy economy

Krugman on what has caused this decade's crappy economy:
First things first: pay no attention to apologists who try to defend the Bush economic record. Since 2001, economic conditions have alternated between so-so and outright bad: a recession, followed by one of the weakest expansions since World War II, and then by a renewed job slump that isn’t officially a recession yet, but certainly feels like one.

Over all, Mr. Bush will be lucky to leave office with a net gain of five million jobs, far short of the number needed to keep up with population growth. For comparison, Bill Clinton presided over an economy that added 22 million jobs.

And what does Mr. Bush have to say about this dismal record? “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work.” Clueless to the end.

Yet even liberal economists have a hard time arguing that Mr. Bush’s cluelessness actually caused the poor economic performance on his watch. Tax cuts didn’t work, but they didn’t create the Bush bust. So what did?

At the top of my list of causes for the lousy economy are three factors: the housing bubble and its aftermath, rising health care costs and soaring raw materials prices.