Talk Of Politics And Economics - Two Things That Don't Mix Well

It is a very accepted idea that President gets credit and blame for the economy. The reality is that the impact of the Presidency on the economy is very small in the short term and in the long term it is pure speculation to say that an action by a president had a defined effect on the economy. The market or markets of the United States, for that matter the world, are too large and incomprehensible for such an assertion to be accurate. But it is fun none the less.

So it is way to early and ludicrous to say, "this is Obama's economy" or the policies of Barack Obama are going to destroy the economy of the United States.

Bruce Bartlett, it is fair to say he is a conservative economist (he is the trickle down guy), says that people protesting the actions of Barack Obama "are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies."

A well used quote about the economy is that it is really big ocean liner. It does not stop on a dime or make sharp turns. Even the best policies don't stop us from economic coasting and making really wide u-turns.

Bartlett writes:

"I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily."

He continues:

"Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs."

Bartlett again:

"In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto."

He concludes:

"Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting."

Sphere: Related Content