Markets Vote 'No' on Bush

"A new rebate probably won't do much harm. But anyone who thinks it will prevent a recession -- if one is actually in the pipeline, which is not at all certain -- is dreaming. . . . It should be called 'feel good economics' because its only real effect is to make politicians feel good about themselves and buy re-election with the public purse."

The Bush Economic Legacy: Massive Deficits

Why such lack of faith in Bush's ability to manage the economy? Maybe because of his track record so far in managing the budget.

Brian Faler and Rich Miller write for Bloomberg: "President George W. Bush is poised to leave the federal government in worse financial shape than he found it, making it harder for whoever succeeds him to deliver on the promises of this year's election campaign.

"Bush may end his eight years in office with a larger-than- forecast budget deficit approaching 2004's record $413 billion, as an increasingly likely recession slashes tax receipts and raises spending. He'll also leave behind a host of thorny, longer-term problems -- from the expiration of his big tax cuts in 2010 to spiraling spending on senior citizens -- that will dog his successor's budgets for years. . . .

"The situation is, in some respects, the mirror image of 2001. Bush, 61, was the first president since John F. Kennedy to take office with a budget surplus, to the tune of $236 billion, giving him considerable latitude in formulating policy.. . . .

"'History will treat him very harshly,'' says Robert Reischauer, former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and now president of the Urban Institute, a Washington-based research group.

"Bush 'came in with an unprecedented opportunity to address the long-run challenges faced by this nation and completely blew it, in part because of events and in part because of policy,'' Reischauer says."

Stan Collender writes in his opinion column in Roll Call that "the lasting Bush budget legacy, which is decidedly negative, was determined long ago and nothing that happens in the remaining 11 months of his presidency will change that. . . .

"Regardless of the reasons you think it happened, when the Bush administration officially began in January 2001, the federal budget was in surplus. In fact, this was the first time since 1927-1930 that there were four consecutive annual surpluses and it was a reason for celebration and wonder by policymakers.

"Bill Clinton as he left office and Bush as he was taking the oath both said the federal debt would be all but eliminated by around the end of this decade. The Federal Reserve wondered out loud about how it was going to control monetary policy if there were no more Treasury bills, notes, and bonds for it to buy and sell. And academics were discussing whether it was better for the economy to use the surplus to pay down the federal debt or cut taxes.

"All that changed almost as soon as the Bush administration began and the budget surplus that had been projected to grow quickly changed to a deficit. The red ink we were told would quickly turn back into a surplus instead grew into several consecutive nominal all-time-high deficits."

Collender also notes: "The Bush legacy also includes one of the most effective efforts to limit the debate and, therefore, minimize the issue, in the history of federal budgeting."