Established 1916

Search ogb.wfu.edu

 

 

 

 

 

Bush can't heal economic woes
By Jamie Kidd
Guest Columnist

For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to be older then I actually am. The reasons have varied throughout time. When I was in elementary school, I wanted to have a later bedtime. In middle school, I wanted to drive. In my early years of high school, I wanted to date senior boys, mainly because they could drive. In late high school and early college years, I wanted to go to bars and clubs. Finally, I have managed to reach the golden pseudo-adulthood of 21 with my own car and an ABC only 10 short minutes away.

I really wish I were 27.

If I were 27, I would have graduated college in 1996 with four years of Democratic-led prosperity in front of me. I would have a job and be buying my first house with low interest rates. Retirement would still be years away. As it stands, I am now graduating facing an uncertain future and lagging economy and job market. Thank you, Mr. Bush.

Even as I write this, I know that a large part of the economic downturn was inevitable. To his credit, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan warned everybody that it was coming a year ago — an observation that anybody who paid attention to business cycles in Economics 150 should have been able to make. Knowing this does not soften the blow. Knowing that our government is willing and able to help fix the problems would ease my mind considerably.

This is the area where I blame President George W. Bush and his administration. The downturn itself was not his fault. Much of the fallout from it is. His massive tax cut was supposed to increase consumption, cut rising unemployment and increase profitability and consumer confidence. Unsurprisingly to anybody but a few die-hard Reaganomists, it failed miserably. Even if the recession was inevitable, the growth of the federal deficit was not. The cut used up the entire federal surplus that could now fund his over-ambitious War on Terrorism and other far more worthy domestic programs. Thankfully, many of Bush’s other plans were defeated in Congress. Imagine what would have happened if he had successfully pushed through the privatization of Social Security!

As the economy continued its downward spiral, Bush tried to fix the problem by holding a summit with various economists and CEOs. No legislators were invited, and no policy initiatives expected. Most analysts agreed that the main value of the summit would be to shore up one of the most valuable and least predictable economic indicators: consumer confidence. Aside from the Doonesbury cartoons it inspired, this summit had fewer positive consequences than the tax cut. Apparently, the sight of CEOs advising their leader on economic matters no longer inspires the American people to do anything but sell stock.

Of course, none of this should be a surprise. Despite his Carhart jacket and Texas ranch, Dubya is really a dyed-in-the-wool elitist. As a product of an Ivy League business school, he is truly a member of the charmed inner circle of financiers that conspiracy theorists often allege secretly run the world. Vice President Dick Cheney does not even make an attempt at a populist front. He is a true capitalist of the "let them eat cake" school of economics. At least Cheney is good at what he does. Bush was unsuccessful at almost every business endeavor until he managed to win the Texas gubernatorial race. Furthermore, there are several indications that he was guilty of shady business practices much like those of his buddy "Kenny-boy" over at Enron. Given all of the evidence, it should be no surprise that this administration’s economic policies are both empirically flawed and skewed against the American people.

Jamie Kidd is a senior political science major.