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.
;-)
From a mathematical point of view, Bush’s tax cuts made the schedule MORE PROGRESSIVE. Percentagewise, the “rich” got a smaller reduction than the middle. Many lower income earners were removed from paying any tax at all.
And then to note that McCain went along with the Dims and the MSM crying about “tax cuts for the rich.” Bush helped get us to the tipping point where less than half pay the way for those willing to vote themselves a part of the national treasury thus killing the republic.
Cato Institute has been infiltrated with statists and liberals the last few years, so I hardly think they are ones to judge anything ‘statist’ anymore. They aren’t getting anymore money from us until they weed out the liberals.
“Really? He doesnt seem that good at it. How come his approval ratings are down to 47% “
After what Obama has already done to America, his approval rating should be 27%. Don’t depress me even more!
Impressive list of keywords there...
Bush Derangement Syndrome continues unabated... People on this thread have really got it bad
11 years later, it turns out I was right. Hey CATO... You are late to the Party.
Now if we can just keep the GOP and the MSM from saddling us with Bob Dole Mark II with a Romney/Huckabee/Guiliani/Pawlenty candidacy in 2012...
Cato Institute has been infiltrated with statists and liberals the last few years, so I hardly think they are ones to judge anything ‘statist’ anymore. They aren’t getting anymore money from us until they weed out the liberals.
Yes, Cato is statist, liberal, and Globalist....so it is kind of telling that such an organization thinks Bush was a statist....more like Bush was too much a statist for Cato....
Like most RINO's, he accomplished some wothwhile things like great supreme court nominees and had the sense to realize that a healthy private sector is necessary to generate the tax revenues necessary to support the nanny state. But like most RINO's, he didn't really have the heart to actually prune back the nanny state. Sooner or later, the sheeple always tire of RINO's and will trade them in for the next available alternative.
Which, far too often, is something much, much worse.
Alito.
Well stated.
LLS
Maybe it is a coincidence , but have you noticed that Obama’s approval ratings 45%-47% are about the same as the % of Americans that have to pay income taxes this year(for last year) ?? I guess deficits and increased government takeovers don't sound as scary if you think you won't be the one paying for it.
Amnesty anyone?
A consumption tax might make more sense than
” Maybe it is a coincidence , but have you noticed that Obama’s approval ratings 45%-47% are about the same as the % of Americans that have to pay income taxes this year(for last year) ?? I guess deficits and increased government takeovers don’t sound as scary if you think you won’t be the one paying for it.
Amnesty anyone?”
WINNER!!
Yo, sickoflibs—Are you supporting the idea we need more taxes—any kind of taxes? Before we get there there needs to be some work done. First, every existing program—especially entitlements—needs to be examined and determined to be effective and non-redundant. Second, there needs to be massive effort to curb frsud, wast and abuse of tax payer money. Third, money collected for infrastructure must be overseeen by independent managers. Politicians have proven themselves ineffective—or worse—with regard to that responsibility. Fourth, every working American should pay a federal and state income tax—even if it is only $1.
Only after those four things are accomplished can we know whether or not we actually need new tax revenue.
The "freeloader factor" is one of the prizes that leftists hope to use with amnesty. That also explains why they want "universal voter registration," so that those too lazy to register won't have to.
As I have said to my liberal friends many times:
“I don’t know what you all are whining about. Bush is the best Democrat the Republicans ever elected.”
Not really a RINO, but unfortunately as you note an adherent to most of what is wrong with the GOP. I don't think Bush views conservatives as enemies the same way as e.g. John McCain does.
But like most RINO's, he didn't really have the heart to actually prune back the nanny state. Sooner or later, the sheeple always tire of RINO's and will trade them in for the next available alternative.
Which, far too often, is something much, much worse.
A problem with electing RINOs is that they can almost never be replaced without letting a liberal Democrat have a seat for a term. The more consecutive RINO victories there have been, the worse the Democrat will be.
(the same problem with RINOs occurs with wrong-wing Republicans who aren’t pure RINOs). My point wasn’t that GW Bush was a RINO, but rather that the election of John McCain would have handed the 2012 election to someone even worse than Obama.
I can buy this Bush I and Bush II were not, and have not, been Conservatives. That being said, they were 100 times better than the Marxists we have in power now.
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.