Getting back to you as promised:
I have respect for the business cycle, and do not necessarily blame presidents for the advent of a recession, whether Clinton or Dubya. I do, however, think that there are things which may stimulate the economy, and things which may dampen it, even granting that adjustments will come from time to time. I am not arguing that Clinton caused the recession, I am saying that, given the timing, if it were a result of presidential behavior or policy, it belongs to Clinton. If that is so, one reason may be the cockiness he had over the supposed miracle economy. I cannot, however, remember specific touting, and it is true enough that any politician similarly situated would have succumbed to some degree of boosterism. In respect of Bush '41, already having acknowledged my factual error, I was merely passing on the "might have" that had circulated in supply side circles so long I had failed to reexamine it in the light of redating. I did not necessarily endorse it, it was speculative, again, "to the extent that policy influenced the timing and occurrence of the recession."
Everyone was operating on the assumption of surpluses in their primary budgeting, but Bush considered his proposed tax cuts as a way to help prevent a long term slow down in the economy all along. When the recession hit, it was taken to prove that a stimulus was needed. |
