Alan Greenspan has harsh words for Bush

[peejay 327]

Harsh words for Bush

Greenspan says president's agenda driven by politics, not sound policy

By MATTHEW BENJAMIN

Bloomberg News

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has criticized President Bush for pursuing an economic agenda driven by politics rather than sound policy, with little concern for future consequences.

Soon after Bush took office, Greenspan wrote in a new book, it became evident that the Treasury secretary and White House economists would play secondary roles in decisions on taxes and other issues. In addition, officials with whom he had worked in the administration of President Ford changed after Bush brought them back to Washington, he said.

"The Bush administration turned out to be very different from the reincarnation of the Ford administration that I had imagined. Now, the political operation was far more dominant," Greenspan, 81, wrote in The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. The book, an advance copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News, is scheduled for publication on Monday, though an embargo on news stories was broken by the Wall Street Journal.

In the 531-page tome, which ranges from Greenspan's childhood in New York to his 18 years at the Fed, he recounts his relationships with the six presidents he served.

Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were the most intelligent, he wrote, while he found Ford the most normal and likable. Ronald Reagan was the most devoted to free markets, though his grasp of economics "wasn't very deep or sophisticated."

George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, was very cordial, though Greenspan's relationship with him was complicated by differing views on monetary policy, he wrote. Bush blamed high interest rates, in part, for his 1992 election loss to Clinton.

Greenspan saved his harshest analysis for the current president. Soon after Bush took office in 2001, the president set about implementing a campaign promise to cut taxes, a policy Greenspan said he believed at the time wasn't well-conceived.

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he wrote.

In 2001 testimony before Congress, Greenspan was widely interpreted to have endorsed Bush's proposed tax cuts. In the book, he characterized his testimony as politically careless and said his words were misinterpreted.

Greenspan's frustration extended to Congress, which let spending get out of control, he wrote. " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin, became part of the Republicans' rhetoric," he said.

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way. They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose," he said.

The Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections.

Even though he had differences with Bush on economic policy, Greenspan said the president promised him early on he wouldn't interfere with Fed policy. He kept his pledge, Greenspan said.

Greenspan also rejected the belief held by some critics that Vice President ####### Cheney tells Bush what to do.

"From my brief acquaintance" with Bush, Greenspan wrote, "it was my impression that he was his own man."

When Bush brought one-time Ford aides Cheney — whom Greenspan describes as having a "sphinxlike calm" — and Donald Rumsfeld, back to Washington, the Fed chairman saw a "golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets."

It wasn't to be.

"I was soon to see my old friends veer off in unexpected directions," wrote Greenspan, who had been encouraged by the budget surpluses of the Clinton administration. "Then with George Bush came the tax cuts, unmatched by decreased spending, and, in the wake of Sept. 11, still more openhanded spending."

Greenspan's career in Washington began in 1967 when he worked on Nixon's presidential campaign. Though he said he found Nixon thoughtful and articulate, he soon saw a dark side. Just before the 1968 Republican convention, Green- span attended a staff meeting where Nixon fulminated angrily and at length about Democrats.

"His speech was so intense and so laced with profanity that it would have made Tony Soprano blush," wrote Greenspan.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...iz/5136647.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not surprised. There isn't an expert - in any field - that would give Bush high marks on anything. The guy is an all-around disaster. One that America will pay for for a good long while after he leaves the White House. There hasn't been a worse President. Ever. Period.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

but in the end, we are better off than we would have been with Al Gore ot kerry.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Aymerlu 3]

I was sitting in my sons civics class this week and they were talking about the Presidents recent speech. Keep in mind that my son is autistic and practically everything he says is way outside the box and way above his level. As the class was talking he rose his hand and said "excuse me, everyone has been talking about this war with the U.S and on T.V the president said this is HIS war." His teacher didn't have an answer for that one! Things that make you go hmmmmm

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

but in the end, we are better off than we would have been with Al Gore ot kerry.

how so?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

but in the end, we are better off than we would have been with Al Gore ot kerry.

how so?

Daniel is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat - your sarcasm detector off?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

but in the end, we are better off than we would have been with Al Gore ot kerry.

how so?

Daniel is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat - your sarcasm detector off?

Apparently.