George W Bush was a bad president and I hate to defend him, but the fact that when asked 68 percent of the American public say he bears responsibility for the bad economy (compared to 52 percent for Barack Obama) is a bit puzzling to me.
Wait for it...
Blaming Obama is, I think, simplistic. The 111th Congress didn't do as much fiscal stimulus as he wanted. The 112th Congress has done basically nothing that he wanted. The GOP blocked confirmation of Obama's appointee to the Federal Housing Finance Administration, undermining his ability to direct national housing policy. They stymied appointments to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Guys like the heads of the Minneapolis, Dallas, and Richmond Federal Reserve banks have influenced policy in a way that was beyond Obama's control. Which is just to say that in terms of people who've been directing American public policy since 2009 there's plenty of blame to go around and no reason to just pin it all on Obama.
I said wait for it goddammit.
But not only did Bush face many of the same constraints on his authority (particularly in 2007-2008) but he hasn't been in office in years.
Consummation! Exeunt.
You know, it's entirely possible that if Bush hadn't had those constraints on the economy then we'd be even worse off then we are right now. The minimum wage would still be $5.15, for instance, because the GOP sure as hell wouldn't have touched it. And let's remember Bush spent the last two years bypassing Nancy Pelosi in the House and going through the "plenary executive" anyway, so this argument is about as hollow as they come.
Blaming Obama really is simplistic, he's right about that. It;s equally simplistic to give Bush a pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment