Why Aren’t We Thanking ‘Gridlock’ For Saving The Economy?

The Federalist ^ | 12/31/2014 | By David Harsanyi

[SeekAndFind]

The Obama Boom is finally here. Gross domestic product grew by a healthy 5 percent in the third quarter, the strongest growth we’ve seen since 2003. Consumer spending looks like it’s going to be strong in 2015, unemployment numbers have looked good, buying power is up and the stock market closed at 18,000 for the first time ever. All good things. So what happened?

Note: The quarter before Obama took office, the U.S. economy SHRUNK by 8.9%, worst since 1930. Last quarter it GREW by 5%, best since 2003.

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) December 24, 2014

Note: Contrasting the most severe recessionary quarter of a six-year presidency—one filled with extravagant and unmet economic promises—with its best quarter, might strike you as a bit hackish. But let’s go with it.

Axelrod isn’t alone is claiming political credit for economic success, and the Obama administration certainly isn’t the first to try and take the glory. But if activist policies really had as big an impact on our economic fortunes as DC operatives claim, I only have one question: Which policy did Barack Obama enact that initiated this astonishing turnaround? We should definitely replicate it.

Because those who’ve been paying attention these past few years may have noticed that the predominant agenda of Washington was doing nothing. It was only when the tinkering and superfluous stimulus spending wound down that fortunes began to turn around. So it’s perplexing how the same pundits who cautioned us about gridlock’s traumatizing effects now ignore its existence.

Here, for instance, is a Paul Krugman column titled the “Obama Bounce.” The problem is that the author fails to justify his headline.

[Beowulf9]

Very good point.