Krugman-Hating Supply Sider Bruce Bartlett: "How Bush Bankrupted USA"

[BurtWorm]

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2006/01/bartletts_quota.php


Bartlett's Quotations
Posted by James Wolcott

Ah, sweet irony of life. It was less than three years ago that Bruce Bartlett, a supply-side economist who's held a bouquet of policy-adviser positions, was writing columns trying to dump ice water on the "angry," "inflammatory," "apoplectic" Paul Krugman. But last October Bartlett, a sure-as-shootin' Reagan conservative, was hustled to the exit from his post at the National Center for Policy Analysis for impure thoughts and words that violated the rightwing think-tank's canon.

Next month will see the publication of his new book about Bush's superbad economic policy, and, my my, does much of it sound Krugmanesque, an adjective that I consider a compliment. Bartlett emerges from these pages drenched in an auburn shade of Bitter Disillusionment, and the title alone tells you how fed-up, cheesed-off, and ready to bring on the funk he is:

Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy

Four presidents dominate this book: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the Son. And the thesis of the book is that Bush is much closer to Nixon than Reagan, and that conservatives have reason to rue that they ever mau-mau'd Clinton about Monica. An unharassed, unbesieged Clinton might have truly reformed Social Security in his second term, according to Bartlett. The Monica follies made that impossible. Yet history will record that in economic Clinton was the far more prudent, serious, and conscientious leader.

"I think it is telling that Bush’s Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, was far better on the budget than he has been. Clinton vetoed bills because they spent too much. Bush never does. Clinton not only reduced the deficit, but he actually cut spending. Bush has increased both. Clinton abolished an entitlement program. Bush created an extremely expensive new one. One can still argue about whether Clinton was a better president or a better man than Bush, but on the budget there is no ambiguity. Clinton was much better."

[CJCRANE]

1. Clinton was a fiscal CONSERVATIVE

Bush is a fiscal DISASTER

[BootinUp]

4. yup

[applegrove]

7. Everyone - even the far left parties in Western Democracies, are

fiscal conservatives. All are.
That is how they all govern.

[Jacobin]

2. Oh my. a republican who won't ignore reality and praise bush

No surprise that they booted him out of the republican cult.

good piece.

Thanks for posting that. Sending it on to some republican acquaintances of mine

[melody]

3. The title of his book says it all

>Impostor

Amen.

[enid602]

5. Bush

Let's face it; our much-loved 'cretin-in-chief' is not much of an economist afterall. Big surprixe.

[madmark]

6. it was obvious we were going off the fiscal cliff from the first day bush

started jawboning for tax cuts.