The New York Times article carried by MSNBC today regarding whether Perry is nothing more than a benefactor of something (booming Texas economy) that he didn't make happen is funny. Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44154553/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
It's funny because, to the extent it's true, the exact(!) same can be said of President Clinton. The economy Clinton presided over was the result of record revenues resulting from the high tech boom, not Clinton's economic policies. The fiscal record of anyone who had been president then would have looked at least as good. In fact, the high tech boom which Clinton didn't have any hand whatsoever in creating brought in revenue that was absolutely key in allowing congress to balance the budget. And that is the main reason Clinton left office with a balanced budget (unless you're one of those 'insane' people who subtract the social security receipts from that balancing act because they have SS recipient IOU's claiming them in which case his budget was in the red).
The New York Times doesn't think that it's fair for Perry to run on a fiscal record not of his doing but they've had no problem praising Clinton for the past 20 years for also only being in the right place at the right time to benefit from an economic boom not of his doing at all. How many times have we heard about Clinton leaving office with a surplus in his budget? But you won't hear that the high tech boom created it, not Clinton. You also won't hear that Clinton left office with the economy headed into a recession that began in March 2000 while he was still in office and was definitely the result of his fiscal policies (interest rate increases). He handed Bush a recession that, to this day, the New York Times irrationally gives Bush credit for.
I can't make up my mind whether this story is very funny or very sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment