Good: He returns to the tradition of many of the founders, like Washington and Jefferson - he starts brewing beer at home.
Bad: He presides over the slowest growth in federal spending in the post-war period. And the states are even worse, obviously. Of course the White House promotes this as somehow a good thing.
So Daniel, you agree that the 2009 fiscal year spending was due to George Bush, not Obama? When Krugman wrote in summer of 2009 that the stimulus had helped avert a Great Depression, he was praising Bush?
ReplyDeleteThe article notes: "Obama is not responsible for that increase [the bailout], though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009."
DeleteAnd my understanding from the piece that linked to this article is that the stimulus package is included in Obama's spending because that was additional appropriation beyond the FY09 budget. So that's baked in the cake.
Now, 2009 still jumped because of Bush. Some of that was the bailout... I still don't feel like I know enough to have a strong opinion on this but I'm definitely not wildly against it. Of course it's unlikely Bush had stimulus in mind when that budget was produced, but certainly any benefit from it has to be attributed to Bush.
I have no idea what Krugman thinks one way or another on the matter.