Alan Greenspan on the Bush Administration:
Here's an interesting preview of Alan Greenspan's memoirs:
Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party’s principles on spending and deficits.
In the 500-page book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.
Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican."
. . . .
Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth."
That's not surprising, as Clinton essentially hitched his wagon to Greenspan before he was even inaugurated. It was a relationship which served both men well, and benefited the nation.
Easy to forget the real Greenspan legacy ... How many say that the crash of 2000 was caused by Greenspan and the unreasonable Fed ratcheting up interest rates so sharply to rein in the overheated Y2K run up to the 2000 election of the Goracle — the election that never happened? And who stuffed money into the system to overheat the Y2K economy?
Yes Mr. Greenspan, bash away, but we know the truth, you are a Clinton man, a lackey, who knew, fooled a lot of people.
Anyone notice how the current deficits are coming down and how the economy is doing just fine. NO, well it's the reporting on the economy that is pathetic now, not the reality.
Why do all these bozos try and rewrite history, haven't they heard of the Internet?
I wonder, how many more people in power from 2001 onward are going to be retracting what they professed to believe then? Condi? Gonzo?
How. You. Like. Them. Apples.
To all the Republican clowns: You just got owned.
Not exactly news to anyone who hasn't been in a coma since 2000. Bush has been an unmitigated disaster for limited government, deficit hawk conservatives.
Ideas?
Only the oil, for instance, could have bought Saddam that military. Or funded the world-wide spread of Wahabbism.
The problem is with people who can only interpret "it's all about the oil" as meaning we're there to steal. The truth is, the world would probably be better off if the west HAD stolen that oil, instead of buying it...
"During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be 'a financial crisis,' Greenspan told the president. 'The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world.'"
There are a variety of "hard truths" not taken into account here. The hard truth of the Cold War era, which Reagan very much helped to end sooner, rather than later, and the accompanying hard truth that Clinton decidedly benefitted from that ending. (The hard truth that the first Gulf War began and ended prior to Clinton's tenure as well.) For example his and VP Gore's "government cuts" were reported to be 93% cuts to military and military related spending while only 7% related to non-military govt. expenditures. And of course Clinton's tenure ended only eight or nine months prior to 9/11, reflecting his lack of due attention to intelligence and military realignments in a post-Cold War era, aka in Clinton vernacular as the "Peace Dividend." WTC '93 (occurring less than a month into Clinton's tenure, with at least one perp escaping to Saddam's Iraq) and its aftermath being merely one reflection of that inattention to some "hard truths."
The hard truth is aspects of military and related intelligence gathering budgets and planning need to be forecasted decades, not years, in advance. Clinton's abdication in this area was pronounced, very much in alignment with decidedly leftist sentiments in a post-Cold War and "end of history" era. Greenspan, as with his media savvy wife, reflects an acumen and articulate quality that is decidedly limited, narrowly so and almost provincial, in ideological terms. One hard truth to come to terms with is that, Constitutionally and in very practical terms as well, the defense of the country in primary, not secondary and not a mere political football.
I favor criticizing the current admin. on several fronts, including some fronts related to spending, but Greenspan is too soft headed in some critical areas to be talking in general terms about "hard truths." Greenspan was the fed chief, not the chief executive, and the country benefitted by his narrower expertise.
"Greenspan was the fed chief, not the chief executive, and the country benefitted by his narrower expertise."
We did? I'm looking around for the bounty but all I see is a credit mess.
From the moment he retired, Greenspan attacked and nitpicked his successor Bernanke incessantly. Now, he's attacking GWB -- when Greenspan was the one who held the monetary reins at the Fed! Today's credit/housing bubble is entirely Greenspan's doing. No wonder he's trying to blame everyone else.
While it's true Greenspan backed Bush's tax cuts, it's not true that he waited until he was out of office to criticize the huge budget deficits. He made quite a point of this latter criticism.
Yeah, I think opposing the scope of the tax cuts would have been smart for someone who opposes huge budget deficits, I think it's worth noting that Greenspan didn't reserve all his criticism until he was out of office.
There's much to criticize in the Bush economic record. Did he criticize the prescription drug benefit giveaway?
I'm no fan of Greenspan, but at least bash him for the sins he's committed.
Nope. Clinton got tax raises through congress specifically to address the deficit issue. Republicans said it would ruin the economy. It didn't -- in fact, the economy did very well under Clinton.
And the data also show that Clinton reduced the deficit in his first two years, with a Democratic Congress.
Then why do you think the West fought the Crusades? Nobody cared about oil back in 1200 AD. There's a bit more in the Middle East that's kind of important to a lot of people--how about the founding sites of the three major monotheistic religions?
Rephrasing: In an alternate universe, Clinton would have sucked. Therefor, Clinton sucked. Similarly, in an alternate universe, Bush would have gotten things right. Therefor, Bush rocks.
Are you skeptical we'd go to war in Iraq for a reason as offensive as religion or for one as crazy? Or is it just that in light of all the post hoc motives claimed for the war since WMD's jumped the shark, you're afraid that if the war apologists suggest even one more they'll give revisionism a bad name?
As my saintly, departed mother used to say, "if my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather." (It sounded classier in Yiddish.)
i'll be the first to admit -- clinton was a pretty good president, despite the fact that i usually prefer repubs to dems, and domestically he was a darned good president.
i'm not a big fan of his foreign policy, and i have my quibbles with him on policy issues (i'm against racial preferences, for example).
but he was a pretty good president. repubs SHOULD be able to admit that. CDS is just as persistent as BDS unfortunately.
If he criticized budget deficits he should have been less cryptic when talking to the Congress.
It seems to be a constant: admit to errors and critisize others but only when you leave your elected/appointed guv'mint job.
The goy, coal miner immigrant variant (from my grandmother) of this one is also good. "If I had some bread, I'd make a ham sandwich. If I had some ham."
It just occurred to me that this thread is great. We got from political recriminations of past economic policy to ham sandwiches is about 18 hours.
Your empiricism is dangerously reasonable. Fortunately, measured attitudes make poor headlines and sound bites, so we can count on them staying underrepresented in the blogging and chattering classes that frame so much of our discourse (this site being atypical).
if i ever become a famous blogger i may borrow that for my tagline...
"dangerously reasonable"
very nice!
Similarly, with respect to:
one wonders exactly what Greenspan is talking about. A number of posters seem to assume it is Clinton's budget stuff, but that is not clear at all.
In any event, Clinton did raise some taxes very early, but after Republicans took control of congress, he went along with lowering other taxes. Further, while in the first two years of his administration Clinton had to try to restrain the Democratic controlled Congress' wild spending proclivities somewhat, the actual spending control came after the Republicans took control.
One wonders, also, how self described "libertarian Republican" Greenspan like Clinton's health care plan.
The real deficit problems are in the future, and the feckless Congress is doing nothing about them.
The problem has been spending, wild extravagant, superporked spending. And Bush signed all of it.