« new rule | Main | The Cat Came Back! »

move over, Hoover, and let W take over

Many people toss around the phrase “worst President in history” when discussing Bush. But when a Nobel Prize-winning economist backs the phrase up with details of how we will be paying the consequences of the Bush Administration for at least a generation, it gets your attention. Here’s a brief quotation relating to just one of the four major areas in which W is giving Herbert Hoover (remember the Great Depression?) a run for the prize:

[April 2000] was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit…. But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001…. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.

The administration crows that the economy grew—by some 16 percent—during its first six years, but the growth helped mainly people who had no need of any help, and failed to help those who need plenty. A rising tide lifted all yachts. Inequality is now widening in America, and at a rate not seen in three-quarters of a century. A young male in his 30s today has an income, adjusted for inflation, that is 12 percent less than what his father was making 30 years ago. Some 5.3 million more Americans are living in poverty now than were living in poverty when Bush became president. America’s class structure may not have arrived there yet, but it’s heading in the direction of Brazil’s and Mexico’s.

There’s lots more, of course—did you know, when hidden costs are factored in, the Iraq war will cost at least $2 trillion? Or how much bad debt from the sub-prime debacle is hidden in portfolios in Europe, China, and Australia? Actually, that’s a trick question—no one knows the answer to that. “It will take years to sort out this mess.”

Maybe I’ll just sing Simon & Garfunkel’s “Mrs. Robinson” with some new lyrics.

Where have you gone, Herbert Hoover
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you
Woo woo woo

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.largelypro.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/200

Comments

Actually, James Buchanan and Warren Harding usually assume the worst-president-ever mantle (until now) before Hoover, who inherited a lousy situation and tried more than most people remember to stop the Depression. It just wasn't nearly enough.

Thanks for the comment, Kevin!

I'm no expert on history, but what you say is consistent with other things I've read. Stiglitz repeatedly mentioned Hoover in his article, but I shouldn't have riffed so much on the comparison.

In any case, no matter who the worst President might be, Stiglitz makes some potent points about what an unbelievably long time we're going to be cleaning up after this administration.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)