IMO, this recession had its seeds in what I call "the clinton administration's War On Business," which started with the attacks on the tobacco, gun, and hi-tech ( Microsoft ) Industries.
I can tell you, as a former small businessman, some important things--
1- it takes time for government policies which are hostile to business to take effect- we are seeing that now.
2- it's hard to get many business owners or CEO's to be really candid about this stuff publicly- they have too much to loose, and face too many liabilities- like civil suits- to be forthcoming.
For example, I can state that each new law, every new regulation, any hike in minimum wages force an owner to think of these things:
1- should I remain in business? Is it worth the added costs?
2- Who do I need to fire, or cut hours on? Who is the least productive member?
3- Can I do better, with less hassle, elsewhere?
The people who write laws and regulations do not think like businesspeople- they are trying to score points with voters.
Well, Mr. G did not do as asked and kept the prime high and we did indeed start seeing an incredible slow down just like all the respected economists said we would have. Then suddenly Big Oil started raising oil prices in 2000 and that is a known economy cruncher. Why does anyone have to invent lies to cover this?
I am a small business person and found that borrowing was actually easier under Clinton than under Reagan. I guess the author of the Insight commentary meant small businesses like Enron.
Other things that heavily affect the economy are consumer confidence and the ability of the lower middle and working classes to afford goods, because when they have money, they spend it. Giving tax rebates to those people will help our economy now. Destroying Reagan's dream of fair taxation by repealing and rebating the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax will create incredible national debt and hurt our economy for years to come.
But to get back to discussing how relaxing the SEC controls works so well. Wouldn't that have happened again after President Bush took office? So then, isn't that what allowed Enron to send it's stock holders and employees off on an economic Titanic? You have to wonder, don't you?
(See: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/opinion/04KRUG.html?searchpv=past7days