The president has little control over whether or not the economy goes into recession. He can do something to scare investors if he wants and could theoretically cause a stock market plunge, but he really has no direct control over the market.

The economy has its ups and downs, and Bush was unfortunate enough to come in just as it started to nosedive.

We can laugh about people who blame the Bush tax cuts for everything, but that makes us gloss over an analysis of what the cuts are actually doing. His tax cuts have resulted in about $200 billion in lost government revenue... which is one of the major reasons that we have a deficit approaching $500 billion (the other major reason is the recession itself, which cost an estimated $300 billion). Also, his tax cuts aren't exactly the fairest cuts I've ever seen:

(Acrobat file)
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

He's not responsible for the recession... few presidents ever are. But he (and the current Republican controlled congress) is responsible for the current deficit and for passing a rather biased tax cut package.

There is also another reason the recovery was deep and has been slow in coming back.
The impeachment defence support coming from Clinton's left caused him to impose many regulatory crippling policies. (he had to pay for that support) He had been somewhat restrained from this type of heavy handness before that.
I believe these policies take a lond time to do damage and as long a time to come back from as they are eased. Bush did not immediately ease the regulatory burden though has slowly been doing so. This is something that will have a under the radar longterm positive boast for the entire US economy.
I am not an economist though i from person experience in the real business world knows this does as much if not more damage as overtaxion. This is also much harder to reverse.

Why do people blame tax cuts for deficits? Tax cuts cause economic growth, yet critics never seem to factor that in. How much larger would the deficit be if the economy hadn't yet started to recover from the Clinton recession?

Also, blaming deficits on tax cuts is like blaming alcholism on the bottle. Fact is, once the tax cuts were enacted by Congress, Congress chose to spend more than the revenue the new tax code would produce. The deficit is the fault of too much spending as much or more than it is of the tax cuts.

But Clinton himself did not pass new laws... congress did. Any new regulations must have come through congress. I assume you mean that he simply didn't veto many highly regulatory bills/revisions that were put on his desk? If that was the case, then yes, he allowed new business regulations to be put in place. But he didn't create them.

I've never heard this before, but am willing to believe it. Do you have evidence (links)?

I agree Bill. While the ability of tax cuts to create economic growth is still a hazy area for me, you are right when you talk about increased spending leading to the deficit. It was the tax cuts and recession (and a few other things) that resulted in a major drop in revenue. But the ridiculous spending from Congress was also what pushed the deficit higher. But who is in control of Congress? I thought conservatives were usually fiscally conservative.

"But he (and the current Republican controlled congress) is responsible for the current deficit"
--Bolo

Sorry... I guess I sort of slipped it in there at the end without realizing that I hadn't made my thinking clearer. Tax cuts reduce government revenue, which would be fine if the government also reduced spending. This hasn't happened--spending has increased. I know Bush doesn't pass the budget, but he and Congress are very closely allied right now. You'd think they could coordinate... Tax less, spend less.

"Tax cuts reduce government revenue, which would be fine if the government also reduced spending."

Tax cuts spur economic growth-- people and businesses spend more money, and when they do, they pay more taxes, thus the government gets revenue. I don't know the proportional effects of it all-- I'm sure it's a complicated ratio. But I'm quite certain that every dollar in tax cuts is NOT a dollar less government revenue.

Having said that, I'm surprised and disappointed at the uncontrolled spending by this allegedly Republican president and congress. I'm all for spending on the W.O.T., but some of the other stuff is simply inexcusable. The GOP should disown these guys.

The government does not make revenue. It hasn't lost anything because it doesn't create anything. Give me the budget, I'll find it, starting w/a 25% cut in the sugar subsidy.

And think of it this way, the gang of 41 can hold up judicial appointments for 2 years but can't stop the budget?

The ONLY saving grace is that the 7 dwarves plans are worse.

Sandy,
Are you saying that government cannot create debt, such as we are witnessing now? I assume that you approve of the spending habits of this administration.

I was beginning to be a little embarrassed by the so-called liberals' tendency to get rid of taxpayers' money. By now, I see that they actually weren't very good at it by comparison.

Making cuts here and there in a case like this is like trying to take a drink from a fire hydrant. As we all know, the situation is headed toward its intended objective--that of forcing massive spending cuts to make up for decreased revenue.

This has been the plan all along. It is fair to ask if such cuts will be made for programs dear to both sides of the aisle.

I am actually somewhat sympathetic for your side--it is stressful having to constantly rationalize misguided behavior.

We, too, know how tough it is trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Bolo,

The EPA, IRS, etc. make new government regulations, enforced as law, without any Congressional input all the time. Because they are Executive Branch agencies, the President can tell them what he would like done. Therefore, issuing new regs or lifting old ones (or just enforcing / not enforcing) as a return favor for support is common, on both sides. Note that the bureaucrats who make / enforce these are not elected or even confirmed in most cases.

sweet and sexy..