Jump to content

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JustGettingItRight (talk | contribs) at 07:16, 26 April 2009 (→‎Income and poverty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration discusses the philosophy, economic initiatives, and events that characterized his two terms as President from 2001 to 2008.

Overview

President Bush's economic policies were characterized by a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the Ownership society, premised on the concepts of individual accountability, smaller government, and the owning of property. The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.

During his first term (2001-2004), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and are set to expire in 2011.

The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP)[1], due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.[2]

President Bush was criticized for pursuing de-regulatory or "anti-government" policies, which economists have argued were among the many causes of the ongoing economic crisis of 2007-2009, considered the most severe downturn in global growth since the Great Depression.[3][4]

Tax policy

Tax cuts

File:Revenue and Expense to GDP Chart 1993 - 2008.png
Revenue and Expense as % GDP
Deficit and debt increases 2001-2008

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[5] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.

Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch[6], Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,[7] and the Tax Policy Center[8] have attributed some of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education"[9]. However, prominent social scientists, such as economist Paul Krugman and political scientist Larry Bartels, have pointed out that education fails to explain the rising gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%, which has been the site of most increases in inequality. They point out that if education were to blame, a larger group would be pulling ahead of the rest of the population, and that wages of highly educated earners have fallen far behind those of the very rich. Furthermore, they point out that the U.S. is unique among developed countries in seeing such a sharp rise in inequality, while the composition of its economy and labor force is not - if education were to blame, one would expect the same trend across all post-industrial nations.[10] Bartels has asserted that the skill base explanation is partially used as it is more "comforting" to blame impersonal forces, rather than policies.[11]

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[12] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[13] The Bush administration has claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower taxation rates. In contrast to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and Republican presidential primary candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, there is a broad consensus among even conservative economists (including current and former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw) that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects.[14] When asked whether the Bush tax cuts had generated more revenue, Laffer stated that he did not know. However, he did say that the tax cuts were "what was right," because after the September 11 attacks and threats of recession, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense."[15]

In terms of increasing inequality, the effect of Bush's tax cuts on the upper, middle and lower class is contentious. Most economists argue that the cuts have benefited the nation's richest households at the expense of the middle and lower class,[16] while libertarians and conservatives[17] have claimed that tax cuts have benefitted all taxpayers.[18] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[19] Between 2003 and 2004, following the 2003 tax cuts, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1% rose from 12.2% in 2003 to 14.0% in 2004. (This followed the period from 2000 to 2002, where after-tax incomes declined the most for the top 1%.)[20] At the same time, the share of overall tax liabilities of the top 1% increased from 22.9% to 25.3% [21], as the result of a tax system which became more progressive since 2000. [22]

2001 tax cut

Facing opposition in Congress for an initially proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut (over ten years) [23], Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the nation in 2001 to increase public support for it. Bush and some of his economic advisers argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers. With reports of the threat of recession, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said tax cuts could work but must be offset with spending cuts.[24] Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. In the end, five Senate Democrats crossed party lines to join Republicans in approving a $1.35 trillion[25] tax cut program — one of the largest in U.S. history.

2003 cuts and later

Economists, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill and 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize laureates, who contacted Bush in 2003, opposed the 2003 tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook considerably (see Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts) [26]. Some argued the effects of the tax cuts have been as promised as revenues actually increased, the recession of 2000 ended, and the economy flourished. [27]Critics indicate that the tax revenues would have been considerably higher if the tax cuts had not been made.[28][29]Income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006.[30]The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) has estimated that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (which are scheduled to expire in 2010) would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1.8 trillion in the following decade, dramatically increasing federal deficits.[31]

See Income inequality: Tax cuts

Effect of policies on federal budget deficit and national debt

File:Bush deficit.jpg
Breakdown of debt incurred between 2001 and 2006.[32]
Recent additions to U.S. public debt
Fiscal year (begins
10/01 of prev. year) 		Value % of GDP
2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%
2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%
2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%
2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%
2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%
2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%
2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%
2008 $962.0 billion (proj.) 6.8%

The cumulative debt of the United States in the past seven completed fiscal years was approximately $4.08 trillion, or about 40.8% of the total national debt at the time of that completion of approximately $10.0 trillion.[33][34]

The total surplus in FY 2001 was $128 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion—through budget deficits—to the national debt since then (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2007). It should be noted that yearly debt accumulation often exceeds the yearly budget deficit, because, for example, paying the interest on the debt is not planned in the budget to be paid off or because Social Security receipts run a surplus (see Fiscal policy of the United States). The total budget deficit for FY 2007 was $162 billion. [35]

From the end of Fiscal Year 2001 (ending Oct. 1, 2001) to the fourth quarter of 2007, the economy has produced $6.5 trillion (in constant 2000 dollars) over and above third quarter 2001 GDP levels of $9.87 trillion per year. [36] In the same period the federal government accumulated $3.0 trillion in gross debt (in constant 2000 dollars) or a debt load of 46.5¢ per dollar of the increased production (for comparison purposes in expressing the size of the debt; that is, new debt didn't exceed new production, but growing economies of growing populations are dependent for their vitality to certain consumption levels, so the increased production isn't necessarily immediately usable in its entirety to pay for the debt). [37][38]

Most debt was accumulated as a result of tax cuts and increased national security spending. According to economists Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler, "the largest costs — $1.2 trillion over six years — resulted from the tax cuts enacted since the start of 2001. Increased spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security – primarily for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – also was quite costly, amounting to almost $800 billion to date. Together, tax cuts and the spending increases for these security programs account for 84 percent of the increases in debt racked up by Congress and the President over this period."[32] Lawrence Kudlow, however, noted "The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that’s a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It's miniscule." He also reported that "during the five years of the Iraq war,. . .household net worth has increased by $20 trillion", [39]indicating that tax cuts, while increasing the deficit in the short term, have produced a larger tax base from which to draw in the future. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the total cost of the Iraq War at closer to $3 trillion.[40]

Interest on the debt (including both public and intragovernmental amounts) increased from $322 billion to $454 billion annually. The share of public debt owned by foreigners increased significantly from 31% in June 2001 to 50% in June 2008, with the dollar balance owed to foreigners increasing from $1.0 trillion to $2.6 trillion. This also significantly increased the interest payments sent overseas, from approximately $50 billion in 2001 to $121 billion during 2008.[41]

President Bush also signed into law Medicare Part D, which provides additional prescription drug benefits to seniors. The program was not funded by any changes to the tax code. According to the GAO, this program alone created $8.4 trillion in unfunded obligations in present value terms, a larger fiscal challenge than Social Security.[42]

Trade policy

U.S. Current Account or Trade Deficit

The Bush administration generally pursued free trade policies. Bush used the authority he gained from the Trade Act of 2002 to push through bilateral trade agreements with several countries. Bush also sought to expand multilateral trade agreements through the World Trade Organization, but negotiations were stalled in the Doha Development Round for most of Bush's presidency. Developing countries blamed the US and the EU for stagnated negotiations since both maintain protectionist policies in agriculture. While generally favoring free trade, Bush has also occasionally has supported protectionist measures, notably the 2002 United States steel tariff early in his term.

George W. Bush successfully gained ratification of the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Supporters of DR-CAFTA claim it has been a success,[43] but detractors still oppose the agreement for a variety of reasons including its impact on the environment.[44]

In 2005, Ben Bernanke addressed the implications of the USA's high and rising current account (trade) deficit, resulting from USA imports exceeding its exports.[45] Between 1996 and 2004, the USA current account deficit increased by $650 billion, from 1.5% to 5.8% of GDP. Financing these deficits required the USA to borrow large sums from abroad, much of it from countries running trade surpluses, mainly the emerging economies in Asia and oil-exporting nations.

Efforts to reform Social Security

Main article: Social Security debate (United States)

President Bush advocated the partial privatization of Social Security in 2005-2006, but was unsuccessful in achieving any reforms to the program against strong congressional resistance. His proposal would have diverted some of the payroll tax revenues that fund the program into private accounts. Critics argued that privatizing Social Security does nothing to address the long-term funding challenge facing the program. Diverting funds to private accounts would reduce available funds to pay current retirees, requiring significant borrowing. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that President Bush's 2005 privatization proposal would have added $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation and $3.5 trillion in the decade thereafter. [46]

According to the Social Security Administration, payments will be cut by 22% under current law around 2041, if no reforms are made to the program.[47]

Regulatory Philosophy

President Bush advocated the Ownership society, premised on the concepts of individual accountability, smaller government, and the owning of property. Critics have argued this contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis, by encouraging home ownership for those unable to afford them and insufficient regulation of financial institutions.[48]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In 2003, the Bush Administration attempted to create an agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill never made progress in Congress, facing sharp opposition by Democrats.[49] The Bush economic policy regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac changed sharply during the economic downturn of 2008, culminating in the federal takeover of the two largest lenders in the mortgage market. Further economic challenges have resulted in the Bush administration attempting an economic intervention, through a requested $700 billion bailout package for Wall Street investment houses.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act

President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law during July 2002, which he called "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." The law was passed in the wake of several corporate scandals and widespread stock market losses. The law addressed conflicts of interest between accounting firms and the corporations they audit and required executives to certify the accuracy of the corporation's financial statements.[50] The law has been controversial, with some advocating its positive effect on investor confidence and detractors citing its significant cost.[51]

Regulation of the financial sector

Leverage Ratios of Investment Banks Increased Significantly 2003–2007

President Bush stated in September 2008: "Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws."[52] The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks, which proceeded to take on increasingly risky bets and leverage after a key 2004 decision.[53][54]

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described the run on the shadow banking system as the "core of what happened" to cause the crisis. "As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that they were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible--and they should have responded by extending regulations and the financial safety net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank." He referred to this lack of controls as "malign neglect."[55]

Economic Indicators

Unemployment

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008. [56] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed. [57] And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years. [58]

Income disparity

During President Bush's terms, income disparity grew. Median household income has more than kept up with inflation since Bush took control of fiscal policy during the 2001 near-recession, growing 1.6% higher in constant 2007 dollars to $50,233 in 2007 from $49,454 in 2001[59][60], while poverty rose from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.5% in 2007.[61]From 2000-2005, only 4% of workers, typically highly-educated professionals, had real income increases.[62]

Economic growth

Economic growth for the 2001 to 2005 business cycle compared to the average for business cycles between 1949 to 2000.[12][63]

Bush inherited a faltering economy from Clinton, the economy having grown only at a 1.1% annualized rate over the previous three quarters from March 31 of the first year of Bush presidency [64](see Early 2000s recession). Bush had his tax cut plan approved by Congress in June, proposed early as a response to the economic decline and, despite the aftermath of the 2001 9/11 attacks.

While the economy has grown under the Bush administration, growth was below average in comparison to the average for business cycles between 1949 and 2000. Overall real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%, 0.6% below the average of 3.4%, while GDI (Gross Domestic Income) growth was 36% below average. The number of jobs created grew by only 6.5%, 28.5% below the average growth rate of 9.1%. The growth in average salaries was less than half as usual; 1.2% versus 2.7%, respectively. While growth in consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income, it too has “failed to keep pace with the... average of previous cycles.” Only investment residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster than average.[12][63]

Despite growth levels considerably below previous levels, a March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.[65]

A significant driver of economic growth during the Bush administration was home equity extraction, in essence borrowing against the value of the home to finance personal consumption. Free cash used by consumers from equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion dollars over the period. Using the home as a source of funds also reduced the net savings rate significantly.[66][67][68] By comparison, GDP grew by approximately $2.3 trillion during the same 2001-2005 period in current dollars, from $10.1 to $12.4 trillion.[69] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2009: "The prosperity of a few years ago, such as it was — profits were terrific, wages not so much — depended on a huge bubble in housing, which replaced an earlier huge bubble in stocks. And since the housing bubble isn’t coming back, the spending that sustained the economy in the pre-crisis years isn’t coming back either."[70] Niall Ferguson stated that excluding the effect of home equity extraction, the U.S. economy grew at a 1% rate during the Bush years.[71]

President Bush tried to calm turmoil in financial markets on March 17, 2008, by saying that his administration is "on top of the situation" in dealing with the slumping Economy of the United States.[72] Bush and Congress had responded to signs of a slowing economy with the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 on February 13.

2008 economic crisis and recession

Further information: Economic crisis of 2008 and Government_intervention_during_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis § United_States

The last year of Bush's second term was dominated by an economic recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) marked December 2007, the month with the highest payroll employment numbers, as the high point of American economic production with output declining from then on to the present.[73] GDP declined by an annualized -0.5% in the third quarter and -3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008.[74] The two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth met the "rule of thumb" definition of a recession, confirming the NBER's declaration of a recession.

Bush responded to the early signs of economic problems with lump-sum tax rebates and other stimulative measures in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. In March 2008, Bear Stearns, a major US investment bank heavily invested in subprime mortgage derivatives, began to go under. Rumors of low cash reserves drug Bear's stock price down while lenders to Bear began to withdraw their cash. The Federal Reserve funneled an emergency loan to Bear through JP Morgan Chase. (As an investment bank, Bear could not borrow from the Fed but JP Morgan Chase, a commercial bank, could). The Fed ended up brokering an agreement for the sale of Bear to JP Morgan Chase that took place at the end of March. In July, IndyMac went under and had to be placed in conservatorship. In the middle of the summer it seemed like recession might be avoided even though high gas prices threatened consumers and credit problems threatened investment markets, but the economy entered crisis in the fall. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also put under conservatorship in early September. A few days later, Lehman Brothers began to falter. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who in July had publicly expressed concern that continuous bailouts would lead to moral hazard, decided to let Lehman fail. The fallout from Lehman's failure snowballed into market-wide panic. AIG, an insurance company, had sold credit default swaps insuring against Lehman's failure under the assumption that such a failure was extremely unlikely. Without enough cash to pay out its Lehman-related debts, AIG went under and was nationalized. Credit markets locked up and catastrophe seemed all too likely. Paulson proposed providing liquidity to financial markets by having the government buy up debt related to bad mortgages with a Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congressional Democrats advocated an alternative policy of investing in financial companies directly. Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which authorized both policies.[75]

Throughout the crisis, Bush seemed to defer to Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He kept a low public profile on the issue with his most significant role being a public television address where he announced that a bailout was necessary otherwise the United States "could experience a long and painful recession." [76]

Income inequality

File:Share top 1%.jpg
Share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%, between 1917 and 2005.[77][78]
Real After Tax Income Changes Skewed to Top 1%

Many economists are critical of the Bush administration's policies and argue that the economy is only benefiting the wealthy, increasing inequality between the top 1% and the rest of society. [79] Economists Aviva Aron-Dine and Richard Sherman point to recent data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), showing that "the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars."[20] At the same time, the share of overall tax liabilities of the top 1% increased from 22.9% to 25.3% [21], as the result of a tax system which became more progressive since 2000. [22] According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, who reviewed income tax returns for all income groups since 1917, found that in 2005, the top 1% received its largest share of gross income since 1928.[80] Economist John Weeks asserts that increased income inequality in the U.S., one of only four high-income OECD countries to experience a significant increase in inequality, is largely the result of a less progressive taxation structure, the weakening strength of labor unions, which has resulted in "a growing imbalance in the economic and political power of capital and labor."[81] However, claims of a "less progressive taxation structure" are refuted by the fact that "high-income households pay a modestly larger share of total federal income taxes," which is the generally-accepted measure of progressivity.[82]

While the vast majority of economists believe that inequality has increased sharply since the late 1970s and during the tenure of George W. Bush, conservative and libertarian economists have attempted to refute claims of increasing inequality by pointing to flaws in the data gather of Thomas and Piketty. Economist Stephen Rose asserts that Piketty and Saez use an older method to adjusting for inflation, exclude government transfers, and they do not address demographic changes. Rose does, however, conclude that while inequality did increase, the increase has been exaggerated.[83] Libertarian economist Alan Reynolds, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, makes similar assertions as Rose[84] Gary Burtless, senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institution, however, stated that Reynolds did not provide sufficient evidence to dismiss the findings of Saez, which are further supported by the CBO. According to him, "many of [Reynold's] criticisms are misguided or unfair given the goals of the Pikkety-Saez project... The CBO handles almost all the problems Reynolds mentions, and its calculations show a sizeable rise in both pre-tax and after-tax inequality since the late 1980s."[85] Overall the vast majority of economists disagree with Reynolds, believing that income inequality has grown and government redistribution is required to lessen the current extent of inequality, which they view as excessive.[86][87]

References

  1. ^ FY 2009 Budget
  2. ^ CBO Historical Data
  3. ^ Krugman Interview
  4. ^ Frontline-Inside the Meltdown
  5. ^ "Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. (March 13, 2007). Tax Facts: Historical Top Tax Rate". Retrieved 2007-10-13.
  6. ^ Income Inequality Has Intensified Under Bush
  7. ^ http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-07inc.htm
  8. ^ Rising Economic Inequality and Tax Policy
  9. ^ Bush Addresses Income Inequality
  10. ^ Krugman, P. (2007). The conscience of a liberal. New York: W. W. Norton.
  11. ^ Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  12. ^ a b c "Price, L. (October 25, 2005). The Boom That Wasn't: The economy has little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-11-10.
  13. ^ "4. Akerlof, G., Arrow, K. J., Diamond, P., Klein, L. R., McFadden, D. L., Mischel, L., Modigliani, F., North, D. C., Samuelson, P. A., Sharpe, W. F., Solow, R. M., Stiglitz, J., Tyson, A. D. & Yellen, J. (2003). Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-10-13. {{cite web}}: horizontal tab character in |title= at position 3 (help)
  14. ^ "Economists on Net Revenue Impact of Bush Tax Cuts. ". Retrieved 2007-11-10.
  15. ^ Justin Fox (2007-12-06). "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues". Time. Retrieved 2007-12-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  16. ^ "Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says". The New York Times. 2007-01-08. Retrieved 2007-01-14.
  17. ^ Chait, J. (September 10, 2007). Feast of the Wingnuts: How economic crackpots devoured American politics. The New Republic, 237, 27-31.
  18. ^ "Tax cuts and the rich". The Washington Times. 2007-01-14. Retrieved 2007-01-14.
  19. ^ "Gale, G. W. & Orzsag, P. R. (May 4, 2005). The Great Tax Shift". Retrieved 2007-11-11.
  20. ^ a b "Aron-Dine, A. & Sherman, R. (January 23, 2007). New CBO data show inequality continues to widen: After-tax income for top 1% rose by $146,000 in 2004". Retrieved 2007-11-10.
  21. ^ a b "Congressional Budget Office (December, 2006). Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-25.
  22. ^ a b "The Tax Foundation (August, 2007). Have Federal Income Taxes Gotten More Progressive Since 2000?". Retrieved 2008-04-14.
  23. ^ "Bush Touts $1.6 trillion Tax Cut". CNN.com. Atlanta: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. 2001-02-01. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
  24. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296930,00.html
  25. ^ Wallace, Kelly (2001-06-07). "$1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law". CNN InsidePolitics archives. Retrieved 2006-06-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ "CBS Interviews Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill ]". Retrieved 2007-07-25.
  27. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/news/economy/gdp/
  28. ^ Washington Post 2007
  29. ^ Washington Post 2006
  30. ^ CBO Historical Tables
  31. ^ CBO Analysis Page 6
  32. ^ a b "Fiedler, M. & Kogan, R. (December 13, 2006). From Surplus to Deficit: Leigslation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion". Retrieved 2007-11-10. Cite error: The named reference "Fiedler & Kogan" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  33. ^ U.S. Treasury website
  34. ^ Bureau of Economic Analysis
  35. ^ "Budget of the United States Government, FY 2009, Historical Tables". Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  36. ^ "Current Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic Product". Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
  37. ^ "Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It". Retrieved 2008-03-30.
  38. ^ "Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers". Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
  39. ^ "Kudlow, Lawrence (April 14, 2008). "What Price Freedom?"". Retrieved 2008-04-15.
  40. ^ NPR-Stiglitz Interview
  41. ^ GAO on BPD Federal Debt Schedules
  42. ^ http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08446cg.pdf GAO Fiscal Briefing - Page 17]
  43. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117245928831919032-search.html?KEYWORDS=cafta&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
  44. ^ http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/cafta/cafta_centralamerica.asp
  45. ^ "Bernanke-The Global Savings Glut and U.S. Current Account Deficit". Federalreserve.gov. Retrieved 2009-02-27.
  46. ^ Twelve Reasons Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea-Reason 3
  47. ^ Social Security Trustees Report
  48. ^ Krugman Interview
  49. ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
  50. ^ [1]
  51. ^ USA Today-Sarbox
  52. ^ "President's Address to the Nation September 2008".
  53. ^ "SEC Concedes Oversight Flaws".
  54. ^ "The Reckoning".
  55. ^ Krugman, Paul (2009). The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. W.W. Norton Company Limited. ISBN 978-0-393-07101-6.
  56. ^ "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey". U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
  57. ^ "Bureau of Labor Statistics". 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  58. ^ "Employment Situation, February 2009". US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 2009-03-06]. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  59. ^ "Historical Income Tables - Households". United States Census Bureau. 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-22.
  60. ^ "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007" (PDF).
  61. ^ "Historical Poverty Tables". United States Census Bureau. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
  62. ^ Slaughter-A New Deal for Globalization
  63. ^ a b "Price, L. & Ratner, D. (October 26, 2005). Economy pays price for Bush's tax cuts" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-11-10.
  64. ^ "(March 27, 2008) Gross Domestic Product: percent change from previous period". Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
  65. ^ "Joint Economic Committee (March, 2006). Research Report #109-32" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-25.
  66. ^ Greenspan Kennedy Report - Table 2
  67. ^ Equity extraction - Charts
  68. ^ Reuters-Spending Boosted by Home Equity Loans
  69. ^ BEA GDP Data-Excel
  70. ^ Krugman-Life Without Bubbles
  71. ^ Ferguson - Interview
  72. ^ "Bush: Economy facing 'challenging times' (March 17, 2008)". Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  73. ^ NBER Business Cycle Dating Comittee. "Determination of the December 2007 Peak in Economic Activity." 11 December, 2008. [2]
  74. ^ http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp408a.pdf
  75. ^ "Stimulus Watch".
  76. ^ Terrence P. Jeffrey. "Declaring 'Entire Economy' in Danger, Bush Calls Bipartisan Powwow for Biggest Bailout Ever". Retrieved 2008-09-27.
  77. ^ Saez, E. & Piketty, T. (2003). Income inequality in the United States: 1913-1998. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1-39.
  78. ^ "Saez, E. (October, 2007). Table A1: Top fractiles income shares (excluding capital gains) in the U.S., 1913-2005". Retrieved 2008-01-17.
  79. ^ "Lou Dobbs on the Bush administration's economic policy". Retrieved 2007-11-10.
  80. ^ "Johnston, D. C. (March 29, 2007). Income Gap is Widening, Data Shows. The New York Times". Retrieved 2007-11-10.
  81. ^ Weeks, J. (2007). Inequality Trends in Some Developed OECD Countries. In J. K.S. & J. Baudot (Ed.), Flat World, Big Gaps: Economic Liberalization, Globalization, Poverty & Inequality (pp. 159-175). New York: ZED Books (published in association with the United Nations).
  82. ^ "Aron-Dine, A. (March 11, 2008). Have the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive?". Retrieved 2008-03-20.
  83. ^ "Rose, Stephen (June, 2007). "Does Productivity Growth Still Benefit Working Americans?" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-27.
  84. ^ "Reynolds, Alan (January 8, 2007). "Has U.S. Income Inequality Really Increased?"". Retrieved 2000-01-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  85. ^ "Burtless, G. (January 11, 2007). Comments on `Has U.S. Income Ineequality Really Increased?` Retrieved from the Brookings Institution" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-01-25.
  86. ^ "Klein, D. B. & Stern, C. (December 6, 2004) Economists' policy views and voting. Public Choice Journal". Retrieved 2007-07-02.
  87. ^ "Klein, G. P. (November 15, 2006). Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism. Ludwig Von Mieses Institute". Retrieved 2007-08-21.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration&oldid=286187826"