Conservative says Town-Hall mobs Have it All Wrong - It's Bush's Fault
Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong--the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago.
Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama's inauguration.
Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.
This is really a rare occassion. A conservative Republican speaking the truth about the George W. Bush administration.
In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO's estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer's budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year's currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush's policies, not Obama's.
I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush.
More truth? Wow, I'm impressed with this man.
Even the media lately has siding with Republicans, implying that it is
Obama's fault that we have an estimated deficit of $1.8 trillion
because of his policies over the past 6 months -- ignoring the previous 8 years the Republicans (for the most part) and Bush were in charge.
Republicans have been claiming that President Obama can't be blaming Bush anymore, that this is 'HIS' economy now. WRONG --- and Barlett apparently agrees.
As for the current trash talk at town halls across America -- I'm betting nearly three quarters of those complaining didn't vote Democratic and I'm also betting that most of the other's anger...stems from either a loss of job or fear of losing one. They all just experienced the worst recession we've had in decades. The health care reform issue has just increased the anxiety that we all have. It's a bit scary not knowing exactly what is being planned, even I have expressed some of my concerns in the past.
In my case however, I fear even more so, is a time where I could find myself not being able to afford health care because it's gotten way too expensive for me to afford.
So hats off to Mr. Bruce Bartlett -- for being an honest man about the Bush administration.
Republicans have PDSD, Post-Dubya-Stress-Disorder, many of the Bush Base feel they have been used and abused, left bankrupt, homeless, or, like former AG Gonzales, with no future. Bush, their Messiah, screwed them and left town to enjoy his retirement. I posted on the syndrome just yesterday. link
Of course The Base will never blame Bush or the GOP, but their puppet masters like Limbaugh will redirect the festering anger at Obama and the Democrats.
August 13, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that most Republicans either know, or at least, suspect the truth. They must hold a delusional double-standard because the truth is so damning.
August 14, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's more like ... if I ignore it, it will go way.
August 14, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This coincides with readily available numbers you can read anywhere that specify 65% - 70% of the Obama budget deficit is a carryover from the prior administration. As it happens, we have to listen to conservative members of congress who omit this information when they are voicing criticism of the Obama deficit number. The fact is, a fair number of conservatives would prefer we forget that GWB ever existed let alone was our 43rd president. Can't say I blame them. The argument of who is our worst president will rage on forever but no matter what Bush 43 will be in the top two or three of that list. This is a done deal and there isn't a thing conservatives or republican congresspersons can do about it.
I think the greater concern is the fact that conservatives seem not to have learned a whole lot from those eight years. So far they seem intent upon continuing with the same lies and misrepresentations typical of the Bush years. They are in serious denial and it'll take them a long time to accept the awful harm of the Bush administration. Inevitably, some will never come to grips with it and carry their shame around forever. I actually have empathy for them because that is an awful burden to drag around and never be relieved of. That so has to suck.
August 14, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done! Thanks!
August 14, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only GOP-ers remaining are dead-enders. The Republican Party is so small today, I do not know why we focus on them anymore other then they are making a specatacle suitable for infotainment. They have only as much relevancy as we give them. We need to be reaching the middle. We need to emphasize how many people are NOT Republican. These GOP Congress Critters walk around with their chests puffed out, but their days are numbered. Few people are backing them up.
The ragemakers are a loud-mouthed minority. Let them spout endlessly at a town hall, then declare they prevented any rational discussion of the issues and that they prevented others from exercising their freedom of speech . Answer every complaint in a press release. Declare that these issues could have been addressed more fully if the ragemakers had not dominated the town hall hooting and shouting in a manner that indicated they were only there to disrupt. They are wasting people's precious time with their representatives.
August 14, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
coonsey, I read the entire article yesterday and it's in my ShareBox for keeps. Bartlett is a true-to-the-heart Supply-sider economist - I suspect he was in on the ground floor on its' inception. I'll bet if you could corner him and ask quite bluntly what went wrong with supply-side theory when put into practice, his response would be the corporate elite decide to cut the trickle down to a slow drip and keep the profits for themselves. That may explain why he's so willing to make Bu$h the scapegoat of the article- supply-side economics might have worked if not for the greed of the corporate elite.
August 14, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment!
August 14, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
" . . . supply-side economics might have worked if not for the greed of the corporate elite." I submit that supply-side economics was doomed to fail precisely BECAUSE of the avarice of the corporate elite. There was no "if" involved--it was a given that the scholarly economists either failed or chose not to recognize.
August 14, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly correct. The idea behind supply-side economics is that if you give the rich a break they will put that money back into the economy, thus creating jobs. Yet, the fundamental assumption in a capitalistic economy is that people look after their own interests. While they certainly are interested in making more money - and investing in more capital will accomplish that goal - if you can find a way to hire less people, pay your people less or outright steal from them you keep more of that money.
The owners of capital have done all three. By investing in better technology and achieving "productivity gains" they hire less people. By firing senior staff in favor of younger employees they pay them less. By forcing employees to work unpaid hours or squandering their pensions they outright steal from employees. These are just a few examples. The ways that the wealthy have slowly eroded the number of people they hire and how much they pay the ones they do are numerous.
In short, supply-side economics would work if the very premise of capitalism actually allowed for it.
August 14, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is just about how I've viewed it. Thanks.
August 14, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink