TCS Daily


Hillary Clinton and Recession of 2011

By James Pethokoukis - February 6, 2007 12:00 AM

How predictable. The fiscal 2008 budget that President Bush put forward yesterday gets slammed for being unrealistic - if not downright mendacious. If the $2.9 trillion proposal actually got enacted as written - doubtful given that Bush is dealing with a Democratic-controlled Congress -- the plan would theoretically balance the budget by 2012. As Team Bush crunches the numbers, the U.S. government would run a $61 billion surplus in 2012 year after running tiny deficits in 2010 ($94.4 billion, or 0.6 percent of GDP) and 2011 ($53.8 billion, or 0.3 percent of GDP). All that while permanently extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts due to expire in 2010.

Of course, journalists and think-tank analysts had barely scanned the budget when critics started pointing out its supposed flaws. Among them: the budget assumes more upbeat economic conditions -- and thus more tax revenue -- than does the forecast from the Congressional Budget Office. (In 2011 and 2012, the White House forecasts 3.0 percent and 2.9 percent GDP growth vs. 2.7 percent for each of those years by the CBO.) As the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts it, "The budget employs rosy revenue assumptions; it assumes at least $150 billion more in revenue than CBO does for the same policies."

Indeed, the CBO - viewed by the inside-the-Beltway crowd as the impartial umpire of all budget disputes -- also predicts a balanced budget by 2012. The catch is that it assumes the Bush tax cuts are repealed leading to a surge of revenue in 2011 and 2012. It forecasts that the budget deficit would drop from $137 billion in 2010 to just $12 billion in 2011. And in 2012, the budget would move into the black with a $170 billion surplus. Yet if the Bush tax cuts are extended, CBO predicts total deficits of $407 billion in 2011 and 2012 and then continuing thereafter.

No wonder Democratic presidential candidates are finding it so easy to pledge or strongly hint that if they are sitting in the White House in 2010, they will veto any effort to extend the tax cuts. One can easily envision President Hillary Rodham Clinton harking back to her husband Bill's 1993 tax hikes and economic success as historical justification for a repeat performance. Deficits are often used as reason for higher taxes, such as in 1993 and 1982. But to believe in higher taxes as sound economic policy in coming years, you also have to believe in the CBO's cheery forecast that hundreds of billion of dollars in new taxes will have little or no effect on economic growth.

Now you don't have to be an acolyte of supply-side guru Arthur Laffer to find that sort of "static analysis" a little weird. Most Americans probably would. So, apparently, did the economic team at Goldman Sachs, the old employer of Robert Rubin, President Bill Clinton's second treasury secretary. Thus the firm's econ wonks decided to try and simulate the real-world effect of letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. Using the respected Washington University Macro Model, Goldman reset the tax code to its pre-Bush status, assumed all tax cuts expired, and watched how the economy reacted as 2011 began. What did the firm see? Well, in the first quarter of 2011 the economy dropped 3 percentage points below what it would have been otherwise. "Absent a tailwind to growth from some other source," the analysis concludes, "this would almost surely mark the onset of a recession."

So actually it's CBO's economic forecast, not Bush's, that is overly optimistic about future economic growth. But wouldn't the Federal Reserve jump in and cut interest rates, offsetting the fiscal drag of the tax hikes with easy monetary policy? The Goldman Sachs experiment assumes it would, but WUMM still shows the economy sinking:

"In an effort to resuscitate demand, the Fed immediately cuts the federal funds rate, bringing it 250 basis points below the status quo level over the next year and one-half ... Despite this, output growth remains well below trend over that period, putting downward pressure on inflation as slack in the economy increases."

And guess what? A recession would throw CBO's carefully calculated tax revenue assumptions out the window. Indeed, the CBO admits that recessions in 1981, 1990 and 2001, "resulted in significantly different budgetary outcomes than CBO had projected a few months before the downturns started."

Of course, it's been the history of tax increases that they tend not to bring in as much revenue as originally predicted. President Rodham Clinton or President Obama or President Edwards would likely find the same budgetary disappointment -- and then have to explain to an angry American public during the 2012 election season why their president decided to plunge the economy into a recession.


Categories:

68 Comments

But a Dimocrat Would Never Accept the Blame....
James, what ever makes you think that a Dimocrat president would take the hit for a recession he/she caused by raising taxes? No way! It would be more like..."the recession is due to the greed of Wall Street," or, "...it's the high salaries of CEO's..." or "...if the Bush Administration hadn't insisted on those darn tax cuts, our economy would be fine..." or "...blame it on those waskally wepublikans....!" To a Dimocrat, there simply is no correlation between raising taxes and economic harm. So don't bother pointing to historical data, to the religion of liberalism, there is no such thing as a bad tax.

Unlike George W. Bush..
Who's motto is, the buck stops everywhere else.

Ah, yes: Remember the Bill Clinton recession. Or was it a depression
Whatever: it was caused by those tax increases. Balanced budget, record profits - it was all an illusion. Absolutely.

It was just a recession
It was also caused by the Clinton tax increases.

The balancing of the budget came after the Republicans took over congress and started slicing Clinton's budget requests.

Make believe history
But - it's funny - how come when Bush was elected the budget requests didn't go down?

The Federal Budget and 21rst Century Prosperity
‘Indeed, the CBO admits that recessions in 1981, 1990 and 2001, "resulted in significantly different budgetary outcomes than CBO had projected a few months before the downturns started."’

It seems that none of the commonly used budget models can accurately predict changes in tax revenues that result from significant and/or unpredicted changes in:
1) The economic cycle
2) The tax code
3) Federal Reserve policy
4) Global trade
5) Chaotic inter-mixtures of all the above and other factors.
While abundant historical data is available for building a reliable model, I am unaware of any model that can accurately predict what we already know...much less the future.

Nonetheless, analysis of tax revenue in the last 60 years clearly shows that changes in tax revenue closely track with changes in economic activity. Tax revenues tend to increase in expansions and decrease in recessions, with generally secondary impacts from tax code, interest rate and trade factors.

So, I recommend that Congress set a goal of 4% GDP growth for the next ten years. By supporting budgets and law that control spending, restrain tax levels and invigorate markets (by minimizing competition reducing regulation), the Congress can greatly increase the chances of a sustained growth period like no other in history. This should result in a significant string of surpluses in the Federal Budget beginning no later than 2011. By 2017, we could be looking at trillion+ surpluses!

Since the American people need these additional revenues to address the problem of potential Entitlement insolvencies, the path forward for the Dems to save America (again) is clear.

The make-believe intelligence of LeMule's post...
Okay. Time to correct LeMule AGAIN.

Bush CUT taxes which stimulated the economy out of the recession caused by Clinton and created record revenues for the IRS and a continued record profits for businesses large and small that are the engines of our country.

Check the facts and you will see when the recession started, under Clinton, and when we started to pull out of it, after the tax cuts.

So while it is true that Bush is a spendaholic it is also true that he has created more revenue for the government through wise tax cuts. This is why the deficit has been reduced so far ahead of schedule.

This is like history repeating itself. Idiots such as yourself attempted the class warfare, tax cuts for the rich, deficits for your great-grandchildren rhetoric on Reagan which proved just as false as they do today.

But then, you believe anything Krugman writes so it is no wonder that you are economically illiterate.

What?
Bush has taken full credit for the economy, as he should, as well as credit for the war of terror, as well he should.

Unless this is just another stab at throwing the liberal talking points into the ring again. In that case: good show.

Economic ignorance...
But Tlaloc, according to the Dims and Libs like LeMule, there is no economic miracle underway. What we're seeing is produced only by smoke and mirrors....oh yeah, the party line is that only the very wealthy are benefitting from today's incredible economy. The rest of us poor smucks are paying the price and are hell-bent toward the poor house. During the first half of the Clinton years, the economy was roaring ahead. The Libs were certain that Clinton was responsible, but were never able to point to anything that he actually did. Once he pushed thru the tax increase, the result was an imploding economy, but by the time it arrived (there's always a lag) Clinton was no longer in office so it was Bush's fault.

And the Easter Bunny brings us all presents
Tell this to the economists.

>Bush CUT taxes which stimulated the economy out of the recession caused by Clinton and created record revenues for the IRS and a continued record profits for businesses large and small that are the engines of our country.

Sure: all Clinton's fault; the stock market tanks, and the country ends the first Bush term with a net loss of jobs; the Clinton surplus is transformed into deficity, but yessiree, all the bad come from Clinton tax increases and all the good from Bush tax cuts.

> Idiots such as yourself attempted the class warfare, tax cuts for the rich, deficits for your great-grandchildren rhetoric on Reagan which proved just as false as they do today.

The only class warfare going on is against the middle class, who are losing.

> But then, you believe anything Krugman writes so it is no wonder that you are economically illiterate.

If you could examine any of his arguments in detail and refute it, you might have some economics savvy crediblty. The kind of sloganeering in this post doesn't show it. But why not talk about something you really know well, like carbon chemistry.

Not a miracle but high employment and a budget surplus
As opposed to net job loss in Bush's first term and a climbing deficit.

>The Libs were certain that Clinton was responsible, but were never able to point to anything that he actually did. Once he pushed thru the tax increase, the result was an imploding economy, but by the time it arrived (there's always a lag) Clinton was no longer in office so it was Bush's fault.

Wait a minute - you left out the thing about the Clinton boom actually being due to Bush I and Reagan policies. And the part about the Easter Bunny.

Bush takes credit and ducks blame
If you think this is 'buck-stops-here' leadership, you're getting what he deserves.

Projection
It would be interesting to model a Clinton third term with his (and Congressional) economic policies projected through Enron, 9/11, Afghanistan and arguably, Iraq.

Well, LeMule, Clinton wasn't the only one responsible for the late 90's early 2000 recession:
He got willing assistance from the other Dims and Libs in Congress who went along with his tax increases. If, as apparently you believe, Clinton had a hand in the good econooy of the early and mid 1990s, please point to one economic measure he pushed through that resulted in the good times. All you have to do is point to one such measure. Just one.

Project away
The standard to beat is not high.

And "credit" for the attack on Iraq???? For the Katrina response??
Been a huge success, hasn't it. Ever since Mission Accomplished, one stunning achievement after another, and all going just the way the President said it would. And Katrina - I wonder why he didn't point out how well New Orleans is now doing in his State of the Union speech?

You mean, beside the tax increase and welfare reform?
He raised taxes, the economy did not suffer, but instead took off. And the budget went into surplus. This was an economic measure.

He also got behind and pushed for bringing down trade barriers.

As a democrat he was able to work effectively for welfare reform, and accomplished it, with good economic results.

The list continues quite a ways. Maybe you were out of the country during his term in office, so you didn't hear about it.


Get over it
Yes, Yes the evil left all the ills of the world have their root cause...The Left. This is really sad you've had a REP government at all three locations and you done sweet FA about balancing the buget. But what are you writing about some preditions about 2011. Get a life

Don't get nasty, LeMule, we just have a difference of opinion....
But to answer your question, I was here in the good ol' US of A , following the Monica scandals with great interest and waiting out the Clinton years. So, just for those of us who are economically ignorant, tell us how a tax INCREASE spurs on an economy? All that hard-earned dough going to the governement which, as we all know, spends it soo wisely, so much better than those who earned it, how does that create increased capitalization, increased production, increased employment, increased taxable income, increased living standards, and increased wealth? Jee, if you could just tie that tax increase to such things, I'm sure the Nobel Committee would be climbing all over itself to issue you a prize for your insight.

Who's getting nasty?? But you don't seem to have heard of Rubinomics.
You asked for Clinton economic measures that helped the economy; I presented some.

As far as how tax cuts could help the economy - Clinton's economic policy was devised with the help of his able secretary of the treasure, Paul Rubin of Wall Street. Rubin argued that bringing the budget into balance (by raising taxes) would reduce consumer and investor interest rates, particularly long term interest rates (which had remained stubbornly high despite Fed rate cuts

This happened.

>how does that create increased capitalization, increased production, increased employment, increased taxable income, increased living standards, and increased wealth?

See above. Or read some of the many papers written about the policy.

But I guess "Monica Lewinsky" is an easier name to remember than Robert E. Rubin.

I forgot: how many American troops died because Clinton denied having sex with Monica? I do remember that when Clinton was trying to act against terrorists, Republicans claimed he was making up a threat to distract attention from the Monica stuff.

The Clinton Bubble
The weak stock-market recession was caused by the bursting of a bubble after years of warnings about "irrational exuberance." Stocks were simply bid up too high during the Clinton years. I have not seen a serious discussion of the effect of double-taxation of dividends, which make growth more desirable. But there is only so much growth to go around, so the price of growth stocks are bid up, creating the illusion of more growth. Eventually the bubble bursts. We probably don't have enough experience to know how well the shift to dividend stocks will work in preventing this. We do know that there has been a substantial re-pricing of both growth and dividends in the stock market.

Reinstating the double-taxation of dividends is just asking for a short-term disruption as the relative price of growth and dividends shift, and for a continuing future of bubbles as growth tends to be bid up at the slightest success, positive feedback leading to the point where the curve _has_ to break.

We weren't talking about stock prices particularly
we were talking about the deficit, employment, and so forth.

>But there is only so much growth to go around, so the price of growth stocks are bid up, creating the illusion of more growth. Eventually the bubble bursts.

Gosh. Sure is lucky nothing has been bid way up during the Bush administration. RE prices? Bubble?? No way... are you sure??

It isn't the politicians, its the policies
It isn't the politicians, its the policies that make recessions and depressions. It was not Hoover, Roosevelt, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, or Bush that screwed up the economy, it was their policies.

We don't gain much by calling the politicians names.

Raising taxes causes business to cut back reducing the money the government brings in and lowering taxes leads to more investment and profit and taxes collected by the government.

It is not rocket science!

So explain what was wrong with Rubinomics.
It seemed to work. What don't we know??

different times, different motivations
only the terminally stupid believe that one characteristic can be used to describe any large group of people for all time.

job losses
The job losses started before Bush took office, because of the Clinton recession, then there was 9/11 which deepened the Clinton recession.

If you look at the start of the Clinton boom, it started almost a year before he took office.

you really need to check with the history books
The economy was booming long before Clinton raised taxes. It started slowing down immediately after he raised them.

Clinton did support NAFTA, but it was the Republicans who did most of the heavy lifting in terms of getting it passed.

Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice. It was only when his polsters told him that welfare reform was popular, and with an election looming, that he decided to sign a reform bill that was virtually identical to one he had twice vetoed.

it only seemed to work, if you were very diligent about keeping your eyes closed
...

Same old same old
Been there, done that. No.

And noone keeps his eyes closed more diligently than MarkTheGreat
He hasn't opened them since he began posting on this board...

Um, sure
think about it the next time you scribble one of your mindless one-line put-downs of liberals.

More imaginary history
And tell us again that that the Clinton boom was actually the result of George Bush and Ronald Reagan's policies.

After all...
Bush did say the responsibility for Iraq rests on this shoulders. He hasn't ducked that which is what you were referring to Mr. Strawman. Whether or not you believe the cause is not the issue.

As for Katrina: that was a complete mistake of local government and completely misreported by the MSM. As for not mentioning it in the SOTU speech: why should he? The money is sitting and waiting for the local and state governments to spend. Not to mention that rebuilding continues even though a great many of the residents no longer wish to return.

Continue your barking puppy. The first step in curing BDS is to admit you have a problem.

What you...
believe to be mistakes, blame, and credit where created and are fed to you by the MSM which you seem happy to parrot without much thought.

So explain your sentence. What am I getting that he, President Bush, deserves? A good economy? A strong military? Do tell...

Same tired response LeMule
It was caused by Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation. Now that you know that also admit that the Internet Bubble burst while Clinton was in office and that 9/11 was a huge hit to our economy.

Tell me again why you don't like unemployment rates lower than Clinton's and a stock market hitting all time highs?

You had to drag the Easter Bunny into this?
>"Tell this to the economists."

I actually listen and read a good deal of economic literature. That is why it is so painfully hard to read your screeds since they are mere party-line stupidity and lies.

Your second paragraph proves this since you take none of the events of Bush's first term into account. I would say you are intellectually dishonest but that would have required you to have actually come up with your thoughts yourself instead of cutting and pasting them from Howard Dean's blog.

It is nice that you say the middle class is losing when they seem to be doing quite nicely in our booming economy. Never let it be said you let reality get in the way of what you think is a good argument.

>"If you could examine any of his arguments in detail and refute it, you might have some economics savvy crediblty."

I don't have to. A great many economists already do a spectacular job of doing so. You might know that if you actually read anything other than his work.

Excuse me, that last sentence should be "You might know that if you actually read THE TITLES of anything other than his work." I forgot your ability to instantly absorb detailed economic literature by reading the title.

>"But why not talk about something you really know well, like carbon chemistry."

I would rather talk about relevancy of someone's fantasy-based opinions who feels the need to run away from his statements by changing login names. Or how about we talk about the integrity of someone who uses multiple login names to simulate consensus? I would find either of those topics far more interesting than rehashing a simple mistake. Don't you agree?

Your utterly predictable
The economy is actually doing very well and Bush gets Zero credit. In fact, the left talks of the misery. Ohhh, the misery. Why, it is so bad out there. It is typical. Now I am no Bush fan but he if the economy is doing well he certainly deserves some credit does he not? If it were Commrade Hillary you would be pontificating the virtues of socialism..

As to Katrina, I am fed up with this crap. Does not the residents of NO bear some responsibility or are they exempt since God teh Father, the Fed, supposed to pick up tha tab for everything? Funny, you want the Fed to coddle you every problem and then when the shortcomming of the largess is revealed you complain about that.

I think it was 1911 that NO was destroyed by a Hurricane. The Fed did nothing and the city recovered. WHile it was a different era, I see not why we are to fix every broken pipe and street. People choose to live there and thus they bear some responsibility for their own welfare...

Accurate response
But eric is in full Clinton the hero mode so it doesn't matter. The recession happened at the end of the Clinton Administration, however. The fault does sit more on his continued tax increases and the fed deciding to tighten the money supply because of the tight labor markets.

Sure, he says he's responsible...
...but he won't admit he made a mistake.

>As for Katrina: that was a complete mistake of local government and completely misreported by the MSM

Oh really??? That's not what the congressional committee investigating it found. Yes, they found local government mistakes but:

FEMA was unprepared for a catastrophic event of the scale of Katrina. Well before Katrina, FEMA’s relationships with state and local offi cials, once a strength, had been eroded in part because certain preparedness grant programs were transferred elsewhere in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). With its importance to state and local preparedness activities reduced, FEMA’s eff ectiveness was diminished. In addition, at no time in its history, including in the years before it became part of DHS, had FEMA developed – nor had it been designed to develop – response capabilities suffi cient for a catastrophe, nor had it developed the capacity to mobilize suffi cient resources from other federal agencies, and the private and nonprofi t sectors.

Moreover, FEMA’s former Director, Michael Brown, lacked the leadership skills that were needed. Before landfall, Brown did not direct the adequate pre-positioning of critical personnel and equipment, and willfully failed to communicate with DHS Secretary, Michael Chertoff , to whom he was supposed to report. Earlier in the hurricane season, FEMA had pre-positioned an unprecedented amount of relief supplies in the region. But the supplies were not enough. Similarly, while both FEMA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made eff orts to activate the federal emergency health capabilities of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), only a limited number of federal medical teams were actually in position prior to landfall to deploy into the affected area. Only one such team was in a position to provide immediate medical care in the aftermath of the storm.

More broadly, DHS – as the Department charged with preparing for and responding to domestic incidents, whether terrorist attacks or natural disasters – failed to effectively lead the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. DHS leadership failed to bring a sense of urgency to the federal government’s preparation for Hurricane Katrina, and Secretary Chertoff himself should have been more engaged in preparations over the weekend before landfall. Secretary Chertoff made only top-level inquiries into the state of preparations, and accepted uncritically the reassurances he received. He did not appear to reach out to the other Cabinet secretaries to make sure that they were readying their departments to provide whatever assistance DHS – and the people of the Gulf Coast – might need.

Similarly, had he invoked the Catastrophic Incident Annex of the National Response Plan (NRP-CIA), Secretary Chertoff could have helped remove uncertainty about the federal government’s need and authority to take initiative before landfall and signaled that all federal government agencies were expected to think – and act – proactively in preparing for and responding to Katrina. Th e Secretary’s activation of the NRP-CIA could have increased the urgency of the federal response and led the federal government to respond more proactively rather than waiting for formal requests from overwhelmed state and local offi cials. Because delay may preclude meaningful assistance and state and local resources may be quickly overwhelmed and incapacitated, the NRP-CIA directs federal agencies to preposition resources without awaiting requests from the state and local governments. Even then, except in certain prescribed circumstances, the NRP-CIA holds these resources at mobilization sites until requested by state and local officials.

The military also had a role to play, and ultimately, the National Guard and active-duty military troops and assets deployed during Katrina constituted the largest domestic deployment of military forces since the Civil War. And while the Department of Defense (DOD) took additional steps to prepare for Katrina beyond those it had taken for prior civil-support missions, its preparations were not suffi cient for a storm of Katrina’s magnitude. Individual commanders took actions that later helped improve the response, but these actions were not coordinated by the Department. Th e Department’s preparations were consistent with how DOD interpreted its role under the NRP, which was to provide support in response to requests for assistance from FEMA. However, additional preparations in advance of specifi c requests for support could have enabled a more rapid response.

In addition, the White House shares responsibility for the inadequate pre-landfall preparations. To be sure, President Bush, at the request of Brown, did take the initiative to personally call Governor Blanco to urge a mandatory evacuation. As noted earlier, he also took the unusual step of declaring an emergency in the Gulf Coast States prior to Katrina’s landfall. On the other hand, the President did not leave his Texas ranch to return to Washington until two days aft er landfall, and only then convened his Cabinet, as well as a White House task force, to oversee federal response efforts.

> As for not mentioning it in the SOTU speech: why should he?

You're right: the whole thing has been a continuging screwup, which he doesn't want to draw attention to.

>Continue your barking puppy
Again - maybe stick to stuff you know, like carbon chemistry

So Bush gets credit for a good economy, but Clinton doesn't??
talking about predictable.
Regarding Katrina - I just quoted this from the Senate report, but let's do it again:

FEMA was unprepared for a catastrophic event of the scale of Katrina. Well before Katrina, FEMA’s relationships with state and local offi cials, once a strength, had been eroded in part because certain preparedness grant programs were transferred elsewhere in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). With its importance to state and local preparedness activities reduced, FEMA’s eff ectiveness was diminished. In addition, at no time in its history, including in the years before it became part of DHS, had FEMA developed – nor had it been designed to develop – response capabilities suffi cient for a catastrophe, nor had it developed the capacity to mobilize suffi cient resources from other federal agencies, and the private and nonprofi t sectors.

Moreover, FEMA’s former Director, Michael Brown, lacked the leadership skills that were needed. Before landfall, Brown did not direct the adequate pre-positioning of critical personnel and equipment, and willfully failed to communicate with DHS Secretary, Michael Chertoff , to whom he was supposed to report. Earlier in the hurricane season, FEMA had pre-positioned an unprecedented amount of relief supplies in the region. But the supplies were not enough. Similarly, while both FEMA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made eff orts to activate the federal emergency health capabilities of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), only a limited number of federal medical teams were actually in position prior to landfall to deploy into the affected area. Only one such team was in a position to provide immediate medical care in the aftermath of the storm.

More broadly, DHS – as the Department charged with preparing for and responding to domestic incidents, whether terrorist attacks or natural disasters – failed to effectively lead the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. DHS leadership failed to bring a sense of urgency to the federal government’s preparation for Hurricane Katrina, and Secretary Chertoff himself should have been more engaged in preparations over the weekend before landfall. Secretary Chertoff made only top-level inquiries into the state of preparations, and accepted uncritically the reassurances he received. He did not appear to reach out to the other Cabinet secretaries to make sure that they were readying their departments to provide whatever assistance DHS – and the people of the Gulf Coast – might need.

Similarly, had he invoked the Catastrophic Incident Annex of the National Response Plan (NRP-CIA), Secretary Chertoff could have helped remove uncertainty about the federal government’s need and authority to take initiative before landfall and signaled that all federal government agencies were expected to think – and act – proactively in preparing for and responding to Katrina. Th e Secretary’s activation of the NRP-CIA could have increased the urgency of the federal response and led the federal government to respond more proactively rather than waiting for formal requests from overwhelmed state and local offi cials. Because delay may preclude meaningful assistance and state and local resources may be quickly overwhelmed and incapacitated, the NRP-CIA directs federal agencies to preposition resources without awaiting requests from the state and local governments. Even then, except in certain prescribed circumstances, the NRP-CIA holds these resources at mobilization sites until requested by state and local officials.

The military also had a role to play, and ultimately, the National Guard and active-duty military troops and assets deployed during Katrina constituted the largest domestic deployment of military forces since the Civil War. And while the Department of Defense (DOD) took additional steps to prepare for Katrina beyond those it had taken for prior civil-support missions, its preparations were not suffi cient for a storm of Katrina’s magnitude. Individual commanders took actions that later helped improve the response, but these actions were not coordinated by the Department. Th e Department’s preparations were consistent with how DOD interpreted its role under the NRP, which was to provide support in response to requests for assistance from FEMA. However, additional preparations in advance of specifi c requests for support could have enabled a more rapid response.

In addition, the White House shares responsibility for the inadequate pre-landfall preparations. To be sure, President Bush, at the request of Brown, did take the initiative to personally call Governor Blanco to urge a mandatory evacuation. As noted earlier, he also took the unusual step of declaring an emergency in the Gulf Coast States prior to Katrina’s landfall. On the other hand, the President did not leave his Texas ranch to return to Washington until two days aft er landfall, and only then convened his Cabinet, as well as a White House task force, to oversee federal response eff orts.

Speaking of tired responses...
What I admire is how every single good thing in the Clinton administration is due to Republican action, and every single bad thing under Bush is due to Democrats or terrorists.

As usual, zero statistics
You say you're familliar with the literature, and you see errors - but you can't point them out. All you can do is say I'm wrong. When you're asked for specifics you do this:

> don't have to. A great many economists already do a spectacular job of doing so. You might know that if you actually read anything other than his work.

Yes, you do if you expect your opinion to carry any authority. You give no indication that you understand what you've read, if in fact you've actually read it.

> how about we talk about the integrity of someone who uses multiple login names to simulate consensus?

Sorry, I have never, ever have done that.

LeMule can cut and paste!
>"...but he won't admit he made a mistake."

In an interview he even said all the mistakes were his responsibility. Either you are so out of the loop or you are just a plain, and poor, liar.

As for Katrina: I always find it amazing that no guilt is ever put on the local and state governments who control the national gaurd, know their citizens, and understand where their resources are weakest.

Nowhere is responsibility put on the residents who could have left but didn't.

Nowhere is responsibility put on Nagin and Blanco for having little spats while they should have been preparing.

Nowhere is responsibility put on Nagin for not mobilizing all of those school buses that could have evacuated those who lacked the means to leave.

Nowhere is responsibility put on the levee board that squandered time and resources in a Democrat(ic)-dominated government.

Nowhere is the Bush administration commended for the amazing mobilization of the military which saved thousands of lives.

Nowhere is the Bush administration commended for the excellent handling the year before when Florida was beaten down by a succession of hurricanes. But as they say: it only takes one mistake to erase a hundred successes.

Nowhere is the realization that the other cities and areas devastated by Katrina did not, and do not, suffer as badly from the effects of the hurricane. Why? Because their local governments were prepared and did not rely on the federal government.

Bush didn't fail Katrina, local and state government did. What Bush failed at was public relations. Perhaps you should question why the MSM was not held accountable for the misrepresentations of the whole situation. But you won't. Instead concentrate on stupidities such as Bush being at his ranch. Tell me, stupid, in this age of instant communications, why location is important. I didn't think it possible but the more you write the more idiotic you seem to become.

Once more you prove to be just another hole out of which liberal talking points spew forth.

>"Again - maybe stick to stuff you know, like carbon chemistry"

Of course again! Why would you let go of this gem when it is the only one you have? Yet I can reference several of your mistakes and errors (none of which you have the integrity to admit to of course). Falsifying agreement, multiple login names, wrongly basing a argument on the title of book, not reading your own sources and having them prove the exact opposite of your argument,...

Ah, your stupidities are legion.

But this particular screed is just simplistic Bush-bashing since you don't have much else to go on.

You should know quite a bit about them
What I admire is how you completely ignore the economic fact that the recession started under Clinton and was made worse by 9/11.

Clinton did some good things and will freely admit that. Number one is he put to rest the myth that Arafat ever wanted peace. Number two was that he realized the danger Saddam posed and rallied the Democrat(ic) party to vote for regime change.

I am sure I could come up with other things since, after all, he wasn't the complete failure that Carter was.

But he was ****-poor, like most Democrats, in understanding that high taxes puts the brakes on a growing economy.

You give none, I should give some?
>"You say you're familliar with the literature, and you see errors - but you can't point them out. All you can do is say I'm wrong. When you're asked for specifics you do this:"

Your errors speak for themselves. You have provided no sources or facts to prove this is a bad economy. You know why? You can't. Things are great economically and you can't say they aren't unless you are a complete partisan tool.

>"Yes, you do if you expect your opinion to carry any authority."

I really don't need you to give my opinion authority. Anyone with half a brain can do their own research to confirm the truth of my words. This would be the reason you cannot.

>"You give no indication that you understand what you've read, if in fact you've actually read it."

My posts indicate that I fully understand the wonderful state of our current economy and the reasons for it. It also allows me to understand the facts that seem to escape you. Such as when the recession started, what aggravated it, and how the Bush tax cuts helped us through it. I still say the man spends too much but hey, tax revenues are at record highs and the market keeps breaking its own records. Now tell me exactly what I have misread or shut up.

As for Krugman, Google the term "Krugman effect". It pertains to an effect noticed by a group of economists. When Krugman spews out one of his gloom and doom editorials in the NYT the market makes a dramatic spike upward. The man is a joke to his own profession.

No wonder you like him. Kindred souls and such.

>"Sorry, I have never, ever have done that."

I guess LeMule agreeing with Gullible was only a figment of our imagination then? You are such a childish liar. No wonder you miss Bubba so much.

Yammer yammer yammer, still not facts
Repeating the same tiresome stuff doesn't make it true.

>Youu have provided no sources or facts to prove this is a bad economy. You know why? You can't. Things are great economically and you can't say they aren't unless you are a complete partisan tool.

In fact, I noted that Bush was the first president since Hoover under which (in the first term) to have lost jobs. You can ignore this, but you can't deny it. Your statements are consistently, broad brush generalities. When you're asked to back it up, you refuse. Sorry.

You disagree with Krugman but can't say why or how. You say the Bush economy is 'wonderful' and offer no specific.

As for the rest: Lemuel Gulliver is the hero of Gullivar's travels. I forgot my Gullivar password, so started a Lemuel account. I've never used two accounts simultaneously, and never will.

Which is more than you can do.
I quoted the bi-partisan Senate report, which also notes errors by state and local officials, but puts the heaviest blame on the botched federal response. You provide double talk rather than response.

The carbon thing was egegious. You were certain about it went on and on until you finally had to recognize reality - and then went on to continue to pose as someone who was educated on the issues. I've logged in under different names, but never simultaneously.

As to the other charges: if you bring specifics, I will again show in detail how you're full of it. But you can never bring specifics: all you can produce are your erroneous recollections and insistent noisemaking.

So the Iraq war has gone just as Bush said it would?
and has been a huge success. Is that what you''re saying??

Thank you for sharing
oh, by the was - there's this word "deficit' - I guess a higher number is one of the ways Bush is better than Clinton was

And you quesiton...
why I call you stupid.

Continue your attempts to build a strawman. What you said was was that Bush never took resposibility for anything. He has for the economy and for the Iraq war. In an interview he stated that if people want to blame anyone it should be him. That is what I call accepting responsibility. He always has he just had to spell it out for people such as yourself.

At the beginning of the Iraq war and the war on terror he said the war would be long, more than likely outlasting his administration. He said it would be tough and it would require will. Is he wrong on that? No.

Yet Iraq is not as bad as you believe it to be. You wouldn't know that by looking at CNN, the BBC, or the NYT since they are invested in a US defeat.

Huge success? Not yet. Yet a free and stable Iraq is worth fighting for and in our best interests to pursue. Wars are won in the will and it is clear to our enemies that a great portion of our society lacks it.

TCS Daily Archives