Kevin Price
Obama is defending 6 years of Democrat policies
By Kevin Price
Barack Obama loves to play the blame game. His current economic challenges are a result of ATMs, the EURO, and of course, George Bush. Consistently the last is the one we hear most often. However, one could easily argue that the Bush era ended around January 2007, after the humiliating defeat George Bush's GOP suffered in the November 2006 elections for the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, losing both Houses of Congress. Upon this defeat, Bush largely became a rubber stamp of Democrat generated legislation, especially when it came to the several major policy areas. Here are just a few examples:
© Kevin Price
October 13, 2012
Barack Obama loves to play the blame game. His current economic challenges are a result of ATMs, the EURO, and of course, George Bush. Consistently the last is the one we hear most often. However, one could easily argue that the Bush era ended around January 2007, after the humiliating defeat George Bush's GOP suffered in the November 2006 elections for the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, losing both Houses of Congress. Upon this defeat, Bush largely became a rubber stamp of Democrat generated legislation, especially when it came to the several major policy areas. Here are just a few examples:
- Consumption tax cuts. For decades Republicans successfully discredited Democrat attempts to provide small and modest tax cuts for the middle and lower class at the expense of those helpful to higher incomes, simply because such policies are ineffectual when it comes to job creation. In 2008, as Republicans were fighting for their political lives, President Bush passed just such a package. Most Americans received checks that were designed to make them go out and buy a new TV, maybe take a vacation, or even use it towards the down payment on a car. Instead, people used them towards their mortgage so they can stay in their home one more month, others paid on a credit card, and others still put it away for a rainy day. Very few used it to jump start the economy. The dramatic decline in the economy in 2006 and 2007 is actually linked to the end of the Bush supply-side tax cuts, that had to be approved each year by the Congress in order to stay in effect. In 2006, pro supply-side Republicans were beat by Democrats who opposed supply side economic policies (tax cuts across the board). The businesses that largely drive the economy knew their days were numbered. The results were almost instant. In less than two years unemployment went from 4.5 percent to 6 (a welcome level compared to today) and consumer confidence reached an all time low. 2008 should have been a referendum on the Democrats.
- Bailouts for everyone! George Bush had long been opposed to the kind of government action we saw in 2008. The idea of bailing out industries was completely opposed to the president's philosophy. Led by Democrats leaders in both Houses of Congress, with significant direction by the House Banking Chairman (Barney Frank of Massachusetts) and his Senate counterpart (Chris Dodd of Connecticut), there was a massive bailout of numerous industries which were all largely behaving irresponsibly. At some point, Bush had completely drunk the Kool-Aid and found himself using TARP funds for bailing out the automobile industry at the tune of $15 billion (that, over the last few years, has grown to $25 Billion).
- States out of control. Not all of the bailout went to businesses, much of it went to states that were spending much more than they were bringing in of revenue. The three that were most guilty were California, New York State, and Illinois, which were all dominated by Democrats for many years and their policies "came to roost" at the end of the Bush administration.
- Regulatory madness. The Wall Street Journal put it best in an article written in 2008. "To hear Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tell it, the Bush Administration is in the pocket of corporate interests. That's a good one. A look at the recent Bush regulatory record makes one wonder why the party's candidates aren't holding it up as a model of Democratic governance. Just last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new ozone rules for the first time in 10 years. As the EPA noted, "ozone is measured out to three decimal places." The new city limits for ozone from cars, power plants, factories and other "man-made sources" is 0.075 parts per million instead of the old 0.080 ppm. The cost in lost economic output from this new more stringent rule is estimated at $6 billion a year, and many communities are still struggling to meet the demands of the old rule. Whether the health benefits of the new rule will exceed these costs is unknown because Congress refuses to allow a cost-benefit analysis for air quality regulations. Last year Bush rule-making agencies imposed $11 billion of net new economy-wide regulatory costs (mostly in the environmental area). The cost of new regulations has increased every year on Mr. Bush's watch, but last year was by far the highest. What's more, a new Heritage Foundation report concludes that the Administration's agency czars are in a "clear the decks" mode of promulgating rules during the Presidency's final 10 months." (Emphasis added).
© Kevin Price
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
