06-13-2009, 05:06 PM
Quote:We must also consider that Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress and Dubya had to deal with a Democratic one the last few years of his term. I see revenues dip sharply during the recession (tech bubble and 911), and expenses start to grow as Bush traded political support for legislative excess in exchange for support of his war efforts. I also see that revenues rise sharply from 2004 to 2008 (after the Bush Tax Cuts go into effect), and had the Keynesian's truly have been in power, they would have held the budget flat at around the 2002 level resulting in surpluses for the four years 2005 to 2008. From a Keynesian POV, wouldn't the increase in government spending during the Bush years contributed to the over stimulation of the economy?My arguments as well as yours about the efficacy of the Bush tax cuts were on the table long ago, and can be searched for by anyone interested. Needless to say, I don't think they increased revenues.
The "Democratic congress" argument would make sense, except that it shows the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting. The deficit grows (or surplus shrinks) and remains high during the whole Republican dominated period from 2000-2006, and drops in 2007-2008, when the Dems were in control. Still looks to me pretty clear where the pattern is.
Bush did not need to trade anything for legislative access. Why would he? His party controlled the Congress, Senate, and White House for six years. There was no need (or desire) for bargaining.
From a Keynesian POV, most of the money spent under Bush might as well have been taken to an incinerator. Money spent halfway around the world on wartime projects might have a stimulus benefit for Iraqis, but the effect would be very blunt for Americans. This is not WWII; there was no mobilization of industry, only boatloads of money being spent abroad, on things which have no domestic multiplier whatsoever. The best you'd get would be the replacement of military equipment, the salaries of soldiers, and rebuilding contracts, none of which is a very large boost back home. The cost, on the other hand, was enormous, and hamstrung the government for dealing with the current crisis.
-Jester