KT,
Bush (and everyone else for that matter) wanted tax cuts at the time because the economy was going to hell in a handbasket after the Clinton bubble burst. Even notorious left wingers (among the few that actually have a clue about economics) like Warren Buffett were calling for tax cuts to help stimulate the economy at the time.
It was/is universally accepted on both sides that when an economy weakens, the right thing to do is run deficits. The only debate at the time was which taxes to cut - those that favored savings and investment (which tend to help rich people) and those that favor consumption (which tend to favor poor people). Two reasonable people can disagree about the right way to go (assuming they think running a deficit is the right thing to do to begin with). One is more long term oriented and geared towards sound economics and one gives a more immediate impact and helps those in need quickly as opposed to over time.
Let's be serious about Greenspan. Clinton didn't have to reappoint him either. The fact of the matter is that the guy was universally loved at the time by Wall St. (because he was making those guys rich and bailing them out regularly), the financial journalists (because most are clueless), and most other people with investments (because they are virtually all totally clueless). I won't even go into Washington because most of them (Ron Paul excepted) shouldn't be running a kennel let alone a country. There was no way either Clinton or Bush 2 was going to replace Greenspan until Greenspan wanted to be replaced (and then Bush did it).
Finally, we discussed the "supposed" Clinton fiscal performance already.
Clinton inherited an economy that was cleansed of the excesses from the Reagan years during the Bush 1 years. It was primed for the next boom when Clinton took office. He got his boom and then a bubble. That lead to extraordinary capital gains tax receipts by the government. The collapse of the Soviet Union under republicans also allowed him to slash the growth rate of defense spending (the peace dividend). Rubin refinanced long term fixed depth with variable short debt and saved interest costs (but raised some other risks). Finally, the huge republican congressional victory (Newt's contract with America that put a lot of fiscal conservatives in congress for awhile) because of Clinton's early attempts to move the country to the left kept a lid on other spending. Those two groups actually worked very well together on a lot of issues. Clinton was also a huge beneficiary of some temporary demographic benefits budget wise.
So while Clinton did make solid efforts to bring the budget under control via taxation, he was to a large extent the beneficiary of perfect timing, some good luck, and a congress that worked very well with him.
Bush 2's big mistake were not cutting spending sharply and not eliminating the tax cuts after the economy recovered. We didn't need them any more.
I'll leave out the war spending and the increases associated to 9-11, because they are seperate debates, but obviously both contributed to the budget issues.
|
