Why Don’t We Hear Bush’s Name Every Single Day?
by digby
Ron Brownstein, the non-DFH of the century, writes:
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.The Census’ final report card on Bush’s record presents an intriguing backdrop to today’s economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama’s combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush’s two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn’t always follow the electoral cycle. A president’s economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy’s performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it.If that’s the test, today’s report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.
“The Republican recession” has a nice ring to it and should have been the mantra for months now. It certainly should be the mantra of the 2010 mid-term. And all those facts and figures about the Bush years should be part of every Democrat’s stump speech. People need to know this stuff, not just for political reasons but because they need to start understanding where these conservative policies lead. If the Democrats don’t use the greatest example of conservative failure since Hoover to illustrate that, it’s going to happen all over again.
In fact, it already is:
One year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the surprise is not how much has changed in the financial industry, but how little.Backstopped by huge federal guarantees, the biggest banks have restructured only around the edges. Employment in the industry has fallen just 8 percent since last September. Only a handful of big hedge funds have closed. Pay is already returning to precrash levels, topped by the 30,000 employees of Goldman Sachs, who are on track to earn an average of $700,000 this year. Nor are major pay cuts likely, according to a report last week from J.P. Morgan Securities. Executives at most big banks have kept their jobs. Financial stocks have soared since their winter lows.The Obama administration has proposed regulatory changes, but even their backers say they face a difficult road in Congress. For now, banks still sell and trade unregulated derivatives, despite their role in last fall’s chaos. Radical changes like pay caps or restrictions on bank size face overwhelming resistance. Even minor changes, like requiring banks to disclose more about the derivatives they own, are far from certain.
Actually, maybe it’s too late. Unless the administration and the congress does a lot more to publicly take on these miscreants, it really will be the Democrats’ fault. And I don’t think the Republicans will be as polite about not looking in the rear view mirror.
.