Posted on 04/12/2010 10:30:40 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
A former White House speechwriter, Mark Thiessen, has jumped to the defense of his former boss, writing for the Washington Post that George W. Bush “established a conservative record without parallel.” Even by the loose standards of Washington, that is a jaw-dropping assertion. I’ve been explaining for years that Bush was a big-government advocate, even writing a column back in 2007 for the Washington Examiner pointing out that Clinton had a much better economic record from a free-market perspective. I also groused to the Wall Street Journal the following year about Bush’s dismal performance.
“Bush doesn’t have a conservative legacy” on the economy, said Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Tax-rate reductions are the only positive achievement, and those are temporary … Everything else that has happened has been permanent, and a step toward more statism.” He cited big increases in the federal budget, along with continuing subsidies in agriculture and transportation, new Medicare drug benefits, and increased federal intervention in education and housing.
Let’s review the economic claims in Mr. Thiessen’s column. He writes:
The thrust of their argument is that Bush expanded the size of government dramatically — and they are absolutely right. Federal spending grew significantly on Bush’s watch, and this is without question a black mark on his record. (Federal spending also grew dramatically under Ronald Reagan, though he was dealt a Democratic Congress, whereas Bush had six years of Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.)
Since federal spending almost doubled in Bush’s eight years, it’s tempting to summarily dismiss this assertion, but let’s cite a few additional facts just in case someone is under the illusion that Bush was on the side of taxpayers. And let’s specifically compare Bush to Reagan since Mr. Thiessen seems to think they belong in the same ball park. This article by Veronique de Rugy is probably a good place to begin since it compares all Presidents and shows that Bush was a big spender compared to Reagan…and to Clinton. Chris Edwards has similar dat, capturing all eight years of Bush’s tenure. But the most damning evidence comes from the OMB’s Historical Tables, which show that Reagan reduced both entitlements and domestic discretionary spending as a share of GDP during his two terms. Bush (and I hope nobody is surprised) increased the burden of spending in both of these categories. That’s the spending side of the ledger. Let’s now turn to tax policy, where Thiessen writes:
Bush enacted the largest tax cuts in history — and unlike my personal hero, Ronald Reagan, he never signed a major tax increase into law.
Using the most relevant measures, such as changes in marginal tax rates or comparing the impact of each President’s tax changes on revenues as a share of GDP, Bush’s tax cuts are far less significant than the Reagan tax cuts. But there presumably is some measure, perhaps nominal revenues over some period of years, showing the Bush tax cuts are larger, so we’ll let that claim slide. The more relevant issue to address is the legacy of each President. Reagan did sign several tax increases after his 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, but the cumulative effect of those unfortunate compromises was relatively modest compared to the positive changes in his first year. When he left office, he bequeathed to the nation a tax code with meaningful and permanent tax rate reductions. The Bush tax cuts, by contrast, expire at the end of this year, and virtually all of the pro-growth provisions will disappear. This doesn’t mean Bush’s record on taxes was bad, but it certainly does not compare to the Gipper’s. But what about other issue, such as trade? Thiessen writes:
Bush enacted free-trade agreements with 17 nations, more than any president in history.
Those are some positive steps, to be sure, but they are offset by the protectionist moves on steel and lumber. I’m not a trade expert, so I don’t know if Bush was a net negative or a net positive, but at best it’s a muddled picture and Thiessen certainly did not present the full story. And speaking of sins of omission, his section on health care notes:
Bush created Health Savings Accounts – the most important free-market health-care reform in a generation. And he courageously stood up to Congressional Democrats when they sought to use the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to nationalize health care — and defeated their efforts.
Conveniently missing from this analysis, though, is any mention of the utterly irresponsible prescription drug entitlement. There is no doubt that Bush’s net impact on health care was to saddle America with more statism. Indeed, I’d be curious to see some long-run numbers on the impact of Bush’s prescription drug entitlement and the terrible plan Obama just imposed on America. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the negative fiscal impact of both plans was comparable. Shifting gears, let’s now turn to education policy, where Thiessen writes:
Bush won a Supreme Court ruling declaring school vouchers constitutional and enacted the nation’s first school-choice program in the District of Columbia.
Bush deserves some credit on school choice, but his overall education record is characterized by more spending and centralization. Thanks in part to his no-bureaucrat-left-behind plan, the budget for the Department of Education grew significantly and federal spending on elementary, secondary, and vocational education more than doubled. Equally worrisome, federal bureaucrats gained more control over education policy. Finally, Thiessen brags about Bush’s record on Social Security reform:
Bush fought valiantly for a conservative priority no American president had ever dared to touch: Social Security reform, with private accounts that would have given millions of our citizens a stake in the free market system. His effort failed, but he deserves credit from conservatives for staking his second term in office on this effort.
This is an area where the former President does deserve some credit. So even though the White House’s failure to ever put forth a specific proposal was rather frustrating, at least Bush did talk about real reform and the country would be better off today if something had been enacted.
This addresses all the economic claims in Thiessen’s article, but we can’t give Bush a complete grade until we examine some of the other issues that were missing from the column. On regulatory issues, the biggest change implemented during the Bush year was probably Sarbanes-Oxley — a clear example of regulatory overkill. Another regulatory change, which turned out to be a ticking time bomb, was the expansion of the “affordable-lending” requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And speaking of Fannie and Freddie, no analysis of Bush’s record would be complete without a discussion of bailouts. Without getting too deep in the issue, the most galling part of what Bush did was not necessarily recapitalizing the banking system (a good chunk of which was required by government deposit insurance anyhow), but rather the way it happened. During the savings & loan bailout 20 years ago, at least incompetent executives and negligent shareholders were wiped out. Government money was used, but only to pay off depositors and/or to pay healthy firms to absorb bankrupt institutions. Bush and Paulson, by contrast, exacerbated all the moral hazard issues by rescuing the executives and shareholders who helped create the mess. Last but not least, let’s not forget that Bush got the ball rolling on auto-industry bailouts.
If all of this means Bush is a “conservative record without parallel,” then Barack Obama must be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
You wouldn't recognize quality if it came up and bit you in the arse.
I see you’ve re-arranged the order in an effort to compensate one of the rabadash attack dogs that you previously disrespected. But it’s too late now. You’ve already disrespected rabadash attack dog SJB by listing him after rabadash attack dog MJK. And now, by re-arranging the order, you’re dissing rabadash attack dog MJK. But perhaps you now feel that rabadash attack dog SJB is more important than rabadash attack dog MJK. Regardless, I find them both to be mediocre rabadash attack dogs. I want you to summon quality rabadash attack dogs at once!
Bush gave freedom and democracy to a large part of the world!
No, I stole it from you. But if you try to sue me, I'll put a (D) after my name and I'll be found innocent of any wrong doing by the MSM. ;-)
That’s twice now that you’ve put rabadash attack dog SJB before rabadash attack dog MKJ. Hey, rabadash attack dog MKJ, you’ve been demoted!
It's a damn shame he had to take away freedom from his fellow Americans to do it.
Harriet Miers. But in the end W, with the help of those who vehemently opposed Miers, did get two excellent picks. Diamonds in the dung heap of his rule.
:-)
BTW: I read that some freepers are spying in your window right now (saw it on that Lieberman thread.) You may want to lower the curtains.
“Oh no! I’m being attacked by a mediocre rabadash attack dog!”
Wow! What a post!
“That’s twice now that you’ve put rabadash attack dog SJB before rabadash attack dog MKJ. Hey, rabadash attack dog MKJ, you’ve been demoted!”
By gum, that was a knee-slapping howler too! Have you ever considered stand up comedy as a career?
No?
Good.
“I had to abandon the principles of the free market to save the free market”
AYE YI YI...
It is because of Bush that we now have our country under seige by the Obama Regieme.
“You’re preaching about a strong foreign policy and you’re a Baldwin supporter? What a joke.”
Sucking up to tyrants and caring more for the security of other countries than your own is not a strong foreign policy.
“You’re going to have to be more specific, I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
(1) Bush actively increased Muslim immigration.
(2) Bush did nothing to stop visa overstayers.
(3) Bush did nothing to secure the border (at least Reagan’s amnesty was SUPPOSED to add security).
(4) Bush support Kosovo independence.
Were you not paying attention?
Dear God... is it possible you've pretty much summed up what most Palin supporters here on FR believe?
See, I knew you couldn't be all THAT bad. You did, after all, hawk for Hunter and Thompson. :)
and Hunter backed Huckabee and Thompson backed McCain.
And Reagan was better how? I don't remember Reagan sending them back.
(2) Bush did nothing to stop visa overstayers.
And Reagan was better how?
(3) Bush did nothing to secure the border (at least Reagan’s amnesty was SUPPOSED to add security).
I don't remember Reagan securing the border.
(4) Bush support Kosovo independence.
Clinton's deal.
Were you not paying attention?
Were you not paying attention to my post? My main concern is terrorism, not Mexican maids and landscapers. My original post said that Bush was the only president willing to deal with terrorists. Reagan did nothing to deal with the terrorists that killed hundreds of our Marines. Now tell me how Reagan was better against terrorism.
Reagan didn't try to import MORE enemies.
“And Reagan was better how?”
9/11 should’ve been a wake-up call.
“don't remember Reagan securing the border.”
Apprehension rates were quite a bit higher under Reagan.
“Clinton's deal.”
Which Bush actively supported.
“My main concern is terrorism, not Mexican maids and landscapers. “
What do you think having a wide-open border and rampant illegal immigration does to a “war on terror”? It helps you LOSE.
“My original post said that Bush was the only president willing to deal with terrorists.”
Saudi Arabia is the source. I don't recall him dealing with them.
“Now tell me how Reagan was better against terrorism.”
He wasn't a Saudi stooge.
What enemies did Bush "try to import"? How did Reagan not "try to import"? Surely you're not saying Reagan sealed the border? (My original post has nothing to do with the border anyway...you're trying to change the subject since you know I'm right about the barracks attack.)
9/11 should’ve been a wake-up call.
The barracks attack should have been a wake-up call.
Apprehension rates were quite a bit higher under Reagan.
My post was about terrorists, not Mexican maids and landscapers. Anyway, since you brought it up, let's see the numbers to prove what you say. Remember, Reagan wanted a true amnesty.
Which Bush actively supported.
The war was over, it was Clinton's deal.
What do you think having a wide-open border and rampant illegal immigration does to a “war on terror”? It helps you LOSE.
The 9-11 terrorists were Mexicans?
Saudi Arabia is the source. I don't recall him dealing with them. He wasn't a Saudi stooge.
Prove it. Show me that is was the King of Saudi Arabia that did 9-11.
Back to reality...Al Qaida did 9-11, not the Saudis, not the Mexicans. Bin Laden was about broke in the 90s proving the Saudis weren't the ones financing him. He could have been caught by Clinton if Clinton wasn't so inept. Coincidentally, when Saddam and the UN's oil for food program started up suddenly bin Laden has money again. Al Qaida carried out 9-11 with the financial and training ground help of Saddam. Bush kills Saddam and his sons, kills Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Iraq.
OK, what did Reagan do after the barracks attacks,...he held our agents back from taking care of business. Yes, Bush was definitely better against terrorism. Reagan was great, top 5, but Bush has him beat in fighting our terrorist enemies.
“What enemies did Bush “try to import”?”
He didn’t try. He did. Active programs to relocate Somalis to the United States and to bring in more Saudi “students”. Sucking up to the enemy. Fighting a war to avoid OFFENDING the enemy.
” (My original post has nothing to do with the border anyway...you’re trying to change the subject since you know I’m right about the barracks attack.)”
Without border security, no war on terror can be won.
“The barracks attack should have been a wake-up call.”
For visa enforcement?
“The 9-11 terrorists were Mexicans?”
They 9-11 terrorists violated unenforced immigration laws and used the same “services” that provide illegal aliens false documents.
“The war was over, it was Clinton’s deal.”
So, it was President Clinton who recognized Kosovo as an independent state in freaking 2008?
“Prove it. Show me that is was the King of Saudi Arabia that did 9-11. “
Saudi Arabia funds terrorism and radical mosques around the world. If you don’t understand that, you are not paying even the slightest attention to this war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.