Paul Krugman quotes George Akerlof:
The Sweet Spot: "What we have here is a form of looting." So says George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics, of the Bush administration's budget policies -- and he's right. With startling speed, we've blown right through the usual concerns about budget deficits -- about their effects on interest rates and economic growth -- and into a range where the very solvency of the federal government is at stake. Almost every expert not on the administration's payroll now sees budget deficits equal to about a quarter of government spending for the next decade, and getting worse after that.
Yet the administration insists that there's no problem, that economic growth will solve everything painlessly. And that puts those who want to stop the looting -- which should include anyone who wants this country to avoid a Latin-American-style fiscal crisis, somewhere down the road...
I'm more optimistic than Paul: I think that there are grownups in the Republican Party, and that they will take control over Republican policymaking over the next two years.
Of course, Paul points out that I believed that the Bush administration had solid and hard intelligence that Saddam Hussein had serious and dangerous nuclear and biological weapons programs--because otherwise the sudden and unilateral replacement of U.N. containment with U.S. invasion made no sense. So I'm not a good judge of the depths to which George W. Bush and his team will sink.
In addition to calling Bush fiscal policy what it is--looting the future for the benefit of today's rich--George has another question that he likes to ask: "Is George W. Bush the worst president that the United States has ever had?"
I find it hard to answer "No." I find it hard to find another president who has done worse. I cannot think of one with a worse economic policy (although you might make a case for Herbert Hoover). On social policy only James Buchanan, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Woodrow Wilson seem to me to have done worse. On national security policy only James Madison, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon seem to me to rank below George W. Bush. But combine all three--and, yes, I have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that he has hit the trifecta.
Posted by DeLong at October 17, 2003 09:33 AM | TrackBack
I particularly like this:
George W. Bush is like a man who tells you that he's bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for himself. Eventually, the bill will come due — and it will be your problem, not his.
"Is George W. Bush the worst president that the United States has ever had?"
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/aug03/msg00006.html
"...I think that there are grownups in the Republican Party, and that they will take control over Republican policymaking over the next two years...."
Brad,
You owe us some outline of the thought process by which you reached this remarkable conclusion. A few weeks ago you asked rhetorically whether there were any grownups in the Republican Party; no flat-footed answer was offered, but the question was surrounded with a penumbra of no-ness, as dense as it was appropriate. So who are these grownups and by what process might they become influential?
Mark well that my great respect for you may be gauged by the fact that I am responding in this manner and not by shrieking, "Fool! Fool! FOOL!"
Oh, I think they are there--in deep hiding, but they are there. I want to smoke them out...
Posted by: Brad DeLong on October 17, 2003 05:33 PMI really feel that we're pretty much at their mercy, too. Unless there are some major defections, I think it's likely that W will be reelected. (I expect him to regain control of the agenda via some crisis between now and Nov. 2004.)
It's uncivil and all for me to say this, but the conservatives and libertarians who post on liberal sites don't seem to be the type ever to change their minds.
Posted by: Zizka on October 17, 2003 06:56 PMThere are plenty of grownups among the Republicans. If you want international experience, they've got Scowcroft, Kissinger(controversial, but certifiably adult), GHWB, James Baker, Powell, and Richard Lugar (my personal favorite). If you want real economists, they've got Feldstein, Boskin, and Mankiw and I'm sure Brad can name a dozen more. But I don't think the people in the white house want adult supervision.
Posted by: Sox Fan in Mourning on October 17, 2003 07:31 PMWell, Mankiw is a grown-up who doesn't seem to have a problem with the inmates running the asylum. I haven't heard of Feldstein or Boskin publicly denouncing this administration's policies. Maybe they're working from inside, but there's been no evidence of it.
"Oh, I think they are there--in deep hiding, but they are there. I want to smoke them out..."
Posted by Brad DeLong at October 17, 2003 05:33 PM
How? They seem to either be in hiding, or to be going along with the administration - which has been pretty successful, in terms of tax cuts, pork, judges, elections, etc. The stuff that counts. And right now anybody in the GOP is pretty much committed to GW's winning in '04. There's no practical scenario where they dump him and don't take a big hit. And if he wins re-election, then he's a winner. There'd be every reason to back him, and no good ones to oppose him (besides, if he won, he'd have a happier and more GOP Congress to help).
Posted by: Barry on October 17, 2003 07:53 PMZiska, I'm one of the con-libs that post here and Bush changed my mind. I'd like to vote for Dean in 2004, though I'd take even one as difficult to support as Gephardt over Bush.
Posted by: Newt on October 17, 2003 10:42 PM"looting the future for the benefit today's rich"
But I thought that was what Ronald Reagan was doing. Oh well, I must have been delusional.
Posted by: john c. halasz on October 18, 2003 12:13 AMWorse than Buchanan?
Worse than BUCHANAN?
Brad, you must indeed be very disappointed with the man.
Posted by: Paul on October 18, 2003 12:48 AMBrad:
Bush is making Warren G. Harding look good. WGH was smart enough to know he had no business in the White House, and killed himself trying to live up to his responsibilities. Bush appears to have no sense of responsibility at all.
Posted by: Ken on October 18, 2003 08:40 AMPaul,
I may have misunderstood, but I took it that Brad was saying that the presidents he named (e.g.) were arguably or clearly worse than G.W. Bush in their respective areas, and that it was only in the context of all three categories that our 43rd president could stand out as the indubitably worst we've ever had.
As for Zizka and Newt: I think the way you put it has your answer, Zizka -- the people who are still posting in favor of Bush are the ones least likely to ever change their mind. But beyond the fact that the internet only captures a certain percentage of the electorate to begin with (and likely the most zealous portion), we only get to see those who choose to speak up. If someone such as Newt changes his mind over the course of a couple of years, we're likely not to notice this change, and so can't recognize this counter-example.
I think the electorate is in great flux right now. I sense a great uncertainty among most of Bush's supporters. I believe that a good Democratic candidate could snatch up a host of them rather quickly. So here's hoping for a good Democratic candidate.
Posted by: Brandonimac on October 18, 2003 10:29 AMBuchanan, Pierce, Millard Fillmore (gotta love the Millard Fillmore), and the other pre-Sivil War Presidents led us into the Civil War.
I still think that's pretty bad.
In a Face-Off Of The Dumb-Ass Presidents, Warren Harding gives Bush 43 a good challenge.
Mind, there's something rather awe-inspiring about the way Bush just lies and lies and is so extremist (after all those lies about his "uniting"). And his uncuriousness seems stupdendous, as does his lack of interest in, you know, reading.
So I'm not saying there isn't a fine case against Bush, either. To be sure.
Oh, and Andy Jackson was a pretty vile piece of work.
I'm just saying.
Posted by: Gary Farber on October 18, 2003 01:06 PMwas wilson really that bad on social/domestic policy? i thought he did alright, what with underwood, clayton, fed, etc
Posted by: mister jingo on October 18, 2003 02:03 PM... segregating the Federal government...
Posted by: Brad DeLong on October 18, 2003 09:23 PM