Re: "It ignores any analysis of Bush's deficit spending."
A war is on, technology and markets crashed before Bush's time. He's just presiding over a recovery from a fall he couldn't possibly have instigated(it arrived in bulk prior to 9/11/01, leaving Bush with under 9 months of market fall, and Clinton with a good nine or more months of Market fall to that date. If you think this fall which got its legs under Clinton is on Bush's shoulders, you ain't thinking straight enough to be fair to readers here, I.M. HONEST H.O.).
Re: "It ignores any analysis of Bush's deficit spending."
Nothing there would seem to explain away the evidence noted in the article. Doesn't even touch it.
Re: "Or of any effect of unfunded mandates"
Since the author would plainly agree that any unfunded mandates could not possibly help with a budget problem, and such a problem was the cruz of his analysis, nothing in this would explain away the evidence noted in the article. It doesn't even touch it(your concern is in agreement with the authors argument, in point of fact)
Re: "some areas were more affected by the stock market bubble and so also more affected by it's crash"
Here we are asked, in a nutshell, to presume that somehow the stock market bubble raised government spending by 40% in California(if I may draw the extreme version of the only logical inference to be drawn here, in the face of the article). This notion would imply that the Clinton cum Bush crash(a big part of why Bush won the election was the then already evident Clinton Crash, for goodness sakes!) should have lowered government spending somehow. Huh.
Re: "Shallow biased analysis IMO"
Well said, if true only of your own. Swell, and thanks, you took my final appropriate words here right out of my keyboard.
Dan B |
