Posted by DeLong at September 9, 2004 01:44 PMEconomist.com | Bushnomics: George Bush's economic agenda is full of bold ideas, but it does not add up
FOR the past four years George Bush's economic strategy has consisted of one idea: tax cuts.... In his speech to the Republican convention in New York, the president came much closer than before to articulating a coherent economic vision. It was an ambitious one too. It purported to define the proper role of government in the modern economy. To prosper, Mr Bush argued, America had to be the best place in the world to do business; and Americans must be equipped to deal with an economy where people change jobs frequently.
That, he said, required reforms to basic economic institutions: the tax code, health coverage, pensions. It meant creating an “ownership society” where people could prepare for retirement and meet their medical costs with individual accounts. It required a busy government. “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives,” Mr Bush intoned....
Just what does it all add up to? Even conservatives disagree. David Brooks of the New York Times saw it as a transformational speech that broadened “compassionate conservatism” into a new governing philosophy. Others saw only blatant vote-buying. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economic analyst, argued that Bush's agenda boiled down to “spend money on whatever you think will buy you a vote.”... Bush's agenda is self-contradictory. The new “agenda” was certainly designed for maximum short-term political appeal... [which] came at the expense of consistency and credibility. For all the ambitious rhetoric, Mr Bush's agenda is self-contradictory... failed to acknowledge America's fiscal predicament.... Mr Bush's refusal to acknowledge any fiscal constraints means that, despite the bold ideas in his speech, it is hard to say what a second Bush term might really bring. Most policy wonks guess that tax reform will be a big issue, if only because the AMT mess will force more changes to the tax code. But what does Mr Bush mean by tax reform?.... [N]o one—including Mr Bush—appears to know.
Answer here:
http://tinyurl.com/4jk63
In the near future we will see the breakdown of coherent sentences in Bush’s speeches. They will devolve to a rudimentary syntax consisting only of the words ‘ownership’, ‘strong’, ‘America’, and ‘compassion’. Noam Chomsky will be able to help us. I am entirely innocent of economics but I have been reading this site for some time; do these guys really have a plan? Are they just a bunch of incompetents trying to tear down the welfare state without anybody noticing? Is their only real policy problem figuring out the correct sequence of destructo-events and good cover stories?
Posted by: bellumregio at September 9, 2004 03:10 PMThe President has made clear what he means by tax reform. It means lowering the percentage of income paid in taxes by very wealthy individuals and large corporations. It has never meant rationalizing and simplifying the Federal Tax Code nor the hodge-podge of State and Local Government tax laws. Real tax reform will be a long time coming, if ever. While we wait, employment policy is another area where emphasis and reforms are also badly needed. It would seem to be in both the short and long term interest of all Americans, for example, if employment policy would strive to increase the employment/population ratio, perhaps by improving the nation's pubic utility infrastructure. The recent wave of hurricanes battering Florida reminds us of how nice it would be to have such infrastructures underground, protected from wind, rain, and other storm related damage, including terrorists. Now let me see, how much of this could have been achieved with the resources thus far sunk in Iraq.
Posted by: bncthor at September 9, 2004 03:15 PMSo...has The Economist made up its mind yet?
Posted by: JR at September 9, 2004 03:46 PMBush knows what he's doing, creating Homeland Defense and ramping up the huge DoD war machine, he's literally bought 1,000,000+ votes with our tax dollars, our social security and our kids and grandkid's budget deficit repayment. All those happy campers with jobs for life, wow!
The question becomes, will enough people realize that we are left holding the bag, to offset the huge population of grateful lackies Bush hired?
The problem resolves to, will enough people even understand the difference between having $450 extra bucks thanks to Bush, and the $900 they'll have to repay in the future? Not bloodly likely!
And as they always do, terrorists stoke the fire.
Score forty-love for Bush on tax cuts and war.
That's game, set and match. Bush by 52:45.
Posted by: Tante Aime at September 9, 2004 08:55 PMEverybody seems to think that Bush is going to gain votes with his plan to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. Are the voters really that foolish?
Posted by: Nancy Irving at September 9, 2004 11:40 PMI think the Bushies know exactly what they mean by tax reform. They just don't want to tell you. Like they've done so many times before, they hide their true, unpopular agenda behind a benign monicker and lack of specifics. There have been plenty of hints as to what an ideal Bush tax package would be:
-- No tax on investment income
-- No tax on inherited income
-- "Flat" tax on earned income
-- "Deficits don't matter"