Just Whose Recession Is It, Anyway?
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala was on CNN the other day talking about the "Bush recession."
He isn't the first Democrat to use that phrase - "Bush recession."
I realize that it is the hallmark of American politics to be disingenuous. OK, that's a polite way of saying that politicians lie.
But really, let's be honest. They lie. On both sides of the aisle.
But this "Bush recession" thing is just over the edge.
And you know what? There are plenty of Americans who will believe that.
It's a timeworn tradition in politics. Say something over and over enough times and people will believe it, regardless of its veracity.
Frankly, if you said "Bush brothel" enough times on CNN, you could probably convince a significant number of Americans that the president is a pimp.
And where were the CNN reporters when the "Bush recession" comments were being made? Flipping a pencil around in their fingers and nodding knowingly.
Why doesn't anybody ever take these people to task?
I know what the Democrats are up to.
The country is in a recession, and it's easy to blame a president for a recession that is happening during his term in office whether he had anything to do with it or not.
And in virtually every instance, the president has little or nothing to do with it.
But there is this recession going on and midterm elections coming up in November, so hey, why not call it the "Bush recession?"
Even though anybody with an ounce of brains knows the economy started to head south during the Clinton administration.
And that the recession itself began in March before any Bush policies took effect. And that the Bush policies of cutting taxes and giving rebates - essentially infusing more money into the economy - probably helped the economy, even if slightly.
Anybody with an ounce of brains also knows that the recession was caused mostly by economic factors that had nothing to do with the president - a spike in energy prices, a run on savings, Fed interest rate hikes, excess business inventories which slowed business investment, the reality check in the stock market regarding techs and dot-coms, etc.
Toss in a horrific 9/11 terrorist attack and there you have it. The recipe for recession.
But hey, why not just call it the "Bush recession." It's so much simpler, and what a catchy phrase it is.
The strange thing is that nobody seems to want to take politicians or pundits to task when they say nonsensical things, like the "Bush recession."
Just last week I was listening to some self-contradictory drivel from U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle.
He was going on about how the Republicans have destroyed economic stability and government fiscal responsibility with tax cuts. At the same time, however, he was quick to note that Democrats weren't against tax cuts and don't want to do away with them.
Somebody needs to ask, "So, Senator, are you for or against tax cuts?"
And he is quick to heap all manner of fiscal blame on Bush when it comes to the budget and the return to deficit spending.
Even more hooey.
Can we all agree on one basic tenet of our system of government?
The president can't spend any money.
Everybody knows, or should know, that Congress holds the purse strings.
If there is deficit spending, the blame rests with Congress. If there is a surplus, give Congress a pat on the back.
And make no mistake. In the current budget cycle, the slowing economy had more to do with surpluses turning into deficits than anything enacted by Congress.
To blame Bush and his policies is just silly.
Certainly, there may be legitimate debate over the size of the Bush tax cut.
But rest assured that even if there was no tax cut, there still would have been deficits.
Because I can guarantee beyond even a hint of doubt that if that money had not been returned to taxpayers, Congress would have spent it.
Democrats love to talk about the Reagan deficits. (Again holding a president responsible for the actions of Congress.)
What they don't like to talk about is the fact that revenue to the treasury increased exponentially during the Reagan years.
The government collected more than $1 trillion in one year for the first time. Problem is, while the revenue side of the equation was growing nicely, the spending side was outstripping it.
Spending was rampant. Reagan has to take a portion of the blame because of his penchant for military spending, but generally, it was Democrats in control of Congress who spent money like a lotto winner on a mall shopping spree.
The reverse happened during Clinton's great economic boom years.
A Republican-controlled Congress held the line on spending and dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget agreement and cuts in social programs like welfare.
Which brings me back to a point I have been arguing for decades.
Budget deficits are not created by the government taxing us too little.
Deficits are created by the government spending too much.
That's a concept that seems foreign to far too many people in government.
And as for the "Bush recession," apparently there's another concept that eludes lots of Washington types.
Truth. [[In-content Ad]]
Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala was on CNN the other day talking about the "Bush recession."
He isn't the first Democrat to use that phrase - "Bush recession."
I realize that it is the hallmark of American politics to be disingenuous. OK, that's a polite way of saying that politicians lie.
But really, let's be honest. They lie. On both sides of the aisle.
But this "Bush recession" thing is just over the edge.
And you know what? There are plenty of Americans who will believe that.
It's a timeworn tradition in politics. Say something over and over enough times and people will believe it, regardless of its veracity.
Frankly, if you said "Bush brothel" enough times on CNN, you could probably convince a significant number of Americans that the president is a pimp.
And where were the CNN reporters when the "Bush recession" comments were being made? Flipping a pencil around in their fingers and nodding knowingly.
Why doesn't anybody ever take these people to task?
I know what the Democrats are up to.
The country is in a recession, and it's easy to blame a president for a recession that is happening during his term in office whether he had anything to do with it or not.
And in virtually every instance, the president has little or nothing to do with it.
But there is this recession going on and midterm elections coming up in November, so hey, why not call it the "Bush recession?"
Even though anybody with an ounce of brains knows the economy started to head south during the Clinton administration.
And that the recession itself began in March before any Bush policies took effect. And that the Bush policies of cutting taxes and giving rebates - essentially infusing more money into the economy - probably helped the economy, even if slightly.
Anybody with an ounce of brains also knows that the recession was caused mostly by economic factors that had nothing to do with the president - a spike in energy prices, a run on savings, Fed interest rate hikes, excess business inventories which slowed business investment, the reality check in the stock market regarding techs and dot-coms, etc.
Toss in a horrific 9/11 terrorist attack and there you have it. The recipe for recession.
But hey, why not just call it the "Bush recession." It's so much simpler, and what a catchy phrase it is.
The strange thing is that nobody seems to want to take politicians or pundits to task when they say nonsensical things, like the "Bush recession."
Just last week I was listening to some self-contradictory drivel from U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle.
He was going on about how the Republicans have destroyed economic stability and government fiscal responsibility with tax cuts. At the same time, however, he was quick to note that Democrats weren't against tax cuts and don't want to do away with them.
Somebody needs to ask, "So, Senator, are you for or against tax cuts?"
And he is quick to heap all manner of fiscal blame on Bush when it comes to the budget and the return to deficit spending.
Even more hooey.
Can we all agree on one basic tenet of our system of government?
The president can't spend any money.
Everybody knows, or should know, that Congress holds the purse strings.
If there is deficit spending, the blame rests with Congress. If there is a surplus, give Congress a pat on the back.
And make no mistake. In the current budget cycle, the slowing economy had more to do with surpluses turning into deficits than anything enacted by Congress.
To blame Bush and his policies is just silly.
Certainly, there may be legitimate debate over the size of the Bush tax cut.
But rest assured that even if there was no tax cut, there still would have been deficits.
Because I can guarantee beyond even a hint of doubt that if that money had not been returned to taxpayers, Congress would have spent it.
Democrats love to talk about the Reagan deficits. (Again holding a president responsible for the actions of Congress.)
What they don't like to talk about is the fact that revenue to the treasury increased exponentially during the Reagan years.
The government collected more than $1 trillion in one year for the first time. Problem is, while the revenue side of the equation was growing nicely, the spending side was outstripping it.
Spending was rampant. Reagan has to take a portion of the blame because of his penchant for military spending, but generally, it was Democrats in control of Congress who spent money like a lotto winner on a mall shopping spree.
The reverse happened during Clinton's great economic boom years.
A Republican-controlled Congress held the line on spending and dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget agreement and cuts in social programs like welfare.
Which brings me back to a point I have been arguing for decades.
Budget deficits are not created by the government taxing us too little.
Deficits are created by the government spending too much.
That's a concept that seems foreign to far too many people in government.
And as for the "Bush recession," apparently there's another concept that eludes lots of Washington types.
Truth. [[In-content Ad]]