tomgeer.com

I love this post from Oliver Willis (a liberal blogger that I read). It’s short, to the point, and speaks to something that I’ve always thought is obvious.

In my mind, there shouldn’t be much of an argument about economic policy between the parties. Those of us who are interested/educated in economics can argue the real effects of the differing fiscal policies. However, all you really need to do is look at statistics or public experience of the economy over the past 30 years:

1981: Reagan administration takes over and implements Trickle-Down Economics. The rich get richer and the economy slows. However, Reagan is an pretty adequate leader, so confidence and economic performance dwindle relatively slowly.

1989: George H. W. Bush takes over and continues the same flawed economic policies. However, he is a less adequate leader in general, so we dive into recession. We then invade Iraq (justifiably) which stimulates the economy, but it is short-lived. The economy is bad enough to be a primary reason Bush is not reelected in 1992.

1993: Bill Clinton takes over and implements economic and fiscal policies that most of recognize as Democratic policies. We gradually come out of recession. The huge deficit is converted into a surplus. The budget is balanced. Economic times are good.

2001: George W. Bush takes over and reverses economic policy. The surplus turns into the largest deficit in American history. Our national debt grows to dangerous levels. The administration faces some tough challenges (9/11, Katrina, etc.), but the leadership largely proves to be incompetent. We invade Iraq (unjustifiably this time). We dwindle into recession, bank failures, and what is largely viewed as the most serious economic crisis since The Great Depression.

2009: Obama will take power. My guess (and hope): we once again have a competent leader with solid economic & fiscal policy who will clean up the latest Bush-directed mess.