They certainly seemed vastly more engaged than the current crew, news conferences answering actual questions, more attention to budgets, and more rapid responsiveness to corporate and political matters.
You are confusing "engaged" with "hyping bogus successes". There was no more "engagement" on the part of the previous administration than there is the current one. The stark reality is that business cycles happen, and the particular administration in power at the time is at the mercy of the business cycle. While presidents can affect the economy on the margins (mostly through pushing a tax agenda, the way Bush did), it is largely out of their control.
Also, SEC chief Levitt seemed much better than Pitt, more honest and thorough, in spite of Congressional pressure on him to abandon his reforms.
I'll reiterate. The ONLY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who acted improperly in the Enron situation was Rubin, who attempted to get the current administration to fraudulently intervene.
If you have some suggestion that Pitt acted improperly, let's hear it. I'm not suggesting Pitt was the right guy for the job -- clearly, Bush didn't feel he was -- but there is no evidence of improper conduct as you seem to suggest.
The answer IMO is "yes", but we have no sponsor of such a position, since the Democrats have abdicated and we're run by the GOP versus nobody.
What policy change would you recommend? |
