John F. Irons notes that the advance word is that the IMF is extremely unhappy with the feckless Bush Administration's macroeconomic policies:
Blog - ArgMax.com: IMF doesn't like the US budget situation.
IMF chides U.S. over budget - Aug. 27, 2003IMF slams U.S. over budget Global lending agency says government assumptions too optimistic, not doing enough to fix deficits.
August 27, 2003: 6:16 AM EDTMILAN, Italy (Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund is set to reproach the United States for being too optimistic in its assumptions on government spending and revenues and lacking a coherent budget plan, according to a summary of a draft report.
The report "criticizes the U.S. government's excessively optimistic assumptions regarding the development of overall state spending and revenues and the lack of a medium-term concept to consolidate budgets and reform the social insurance system," the draft said.
[...]
News of the IMF report comes a day after a congressional budget agency forecast a federal budget deficit of $480 billion in 2004, a record shortfall...
I remember then-IMF head Michel Camdessus's meeting with then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen in the fall of 1993, where Camdessus said that he was very happy to finally be confident that he was dealing with allies--people interested in sound finance and global growth--in the U.S. government.
Various people who have worked in past Republican administrations say that the quality of economic-policy decision-making in this particular Bush Administration really is atrociously bad--as bad as in Reagan's disastrous first year.
Posted by DeLong at August 27, 2003 08:59 PM | TrackBack
John S. Irons.
Posted by: James McDonnell on August 28, 2003 01:06 AMProf., I really don't believe they HAVE a policy, other than funneling money into the pockets of supporters via tax cuts and sweetheart no-bid contracts.
Posted by: Chuck Nolan on August 28, 2003 04:47 AMThe bad decision-making is guided not only by narrow ideology, but also a childish desire to
do exactly the opposite of what the Clinton team
would do. All the forces that influence this bunch (paying off supporters, tax cuts as a cure-all, and anti-clintonism) lead to disaster. Doing the right thing is never an option.
The economic policy is not "do the opposite of what Clinton would do". The Bush economic policy is a continuation of the cronyism in Texas. It is the Bush/Rove one, two. Do favors for big campaign donors . Use campaign money to drive up the opponents negatives and spin the real effect of the policies. In TX, Karen Hughes was an internal governor on policies that did not pass the smell test.
The media overlooks this story. Is there a conflict of interest in the media (especially TV) that makes a lot of money selling air time for campaign ads? Does the media then favor candidates that can raise the big bucks to pay for the big ads? Can campaigns influence TV media by where they place their advertising dollars?
Posted by: bakho on August 28, 2003 06:06 AMBakho,
May I suggest that the media problem is bigger and more contrary to the hopes of the founding fathers. Increased concentration in the holdings of news organizations means that ever fewer people have control over what ends up in major news outlets. One news bigwig deciding that Clinton's groin is a good topic for extensive coverage means it will get extensive coverage. One bigwig deciding that Bush's unconcern with the truth is not fit for print means there will be a gap in coverage. Even ignoring efforts at direct influence by politicos, big advertisers can have a serious influence on coverage of politics ("Lay off the Shrub!") or business ("Lay off Wal-Mart's labor practices!").
Has the Bush administration now officially become a caricature? Can't boost federal civilian wages by more than 2% (again) because the cost would threaten the war on terrorism. Do costly tax cuts threaten the war on terrorism? It's your money and its unpatriotic to ask.
Posted by: K Harris on August 28, 2003 12:27 PMHow long before we ask the IMF to bail us out?
Posted by: Alan on August 28, 2003 04:44 PMMy question is this: its increasingly obvious how disastrous this all is. Canaries in the mine shaft like Krugman get blasted by various flunkies. WHAT can be done to get whatever responsible folks there are over on the right side of the aisle to wake up to all this?
Posted by: Joe Pundit on August 28, 2003 09:26 PMInteresting implication -- that there are responsible folks over on the right side of the aisle. I'm not sure I share the assumption.
Today's press (WSJ, I think - no time to check) says the AG is getting heat from the right for abridging constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. There are good people on the right. Most of them just don't occupy high public office.
Posted by: K Harris on August 29, 2003 06:17 AM