Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The London Times has some excerpts from Greenspan's new book, in which he blisters Bush for his failure to understand economics and his profligate spending. A brief clip below the fold:
He writes that Bush's failure to curb spending was "a major mistake" and that Republican congressmen were "feeding at the trough". "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," he says. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose [the 2006 congressional election]."He sums up his deep disappointment with Bush. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."
In contrast Greenspan, an adviser to Gordon Brown who describes his own politics as "lifelong libertarian Republican", called Clinton's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage".
When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off in unexpected directions."
He rejects the Republican mantra that "deficits don't matter" and says that in the Bush-Cheney White House "little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences".
This is the same thing that has been said for years by every honest real conservative, who recognize that Bush has governed about as far from those stated principles as possible. He also says, by the way, that the Iraq war was about oil:
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
Comments
To quote Paul Krugman, "Well, I'm sorry, but that criticism comes six years late and a trillion dollars short."
On Iraq, I don't agree that Saddam was a threat in the way he sees it. Saddam tried waving his dick around once before and got it whacked good and proper; such a man can be useful.
Posted by: Pieter B | September 19, 2007 11:20 AM
Krugman in Monday's NYTimes actually chastised Greenspan for going back on his own statements. Greenspan actually gave the Bush tax cuts the "green light" in 2001 (prior to the wall street post-9/11 crash). In the book he insists that was never his intention, but Krugman lists several appearances before Congress where he could have corrected this "misconception" (my term) and never did.
This even included a point in 2004 where he actually supported making the tax cuts permanent, along with cutting entitlement (re: Social Security) spending to control the budget - while back in 2001 he assured Congress that cutting taxes wouldn't threaten Social Security.
In short, like every high-level bureaucrat, he seems to say exactly what should be said to keep the boss at the top happy.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | September 19, 2007 11:29 AM
It's pretty much a cop-out to raise your criticism after you no longer have a say in policy matters, as Krugman points out (Time$elect is dead! Hooray!).
We also just passed the 50th anniversary of the publishing of Atlas Shrugged. Greenspan was part of the clique around Ayn Rand that helped her edit and refine the novel. So he's got that on his conscience, too.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 19, 2007 11:31 AM
Joe: The tax cuts weren't the problem, the lack of spending cuts was.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 19, 2007 1:27 PM
Depends on your perspective and whether or not you think what the government is spending money on is worth spending.
Clinton made it a public campaign in 1993 to spend money on infrastructure support and repair, money that was cut off in the budget wars with the '94 elected Gingrich Congress. Would that have changed things this last summer had that spending support continued?
A balanced budget is a balanced budget, and responsible fiscal planning. Whether its budgeted by spending cuts or increased revenue is irrelevant unless you're the one seeing your money go to something you don't want it to go to.
Like, say, "Faith Based Initiatives", or "an unjustified war". Such spending is to many just as reckless as the socialist-driven handouts (Social Security, etc) that some see as the remnants of the New Deal.
If you know you can't cut spending because there would be an uproar among those who benefit from that spending, then DON'T CUT THE REVENUE. You can't have it both ways and call it "responsible".
Posted by: Joe Shelby | September 19, 2007 2:33 PM
This is the same thing that has been said for years by every honest real conservative, who recognize that Bush has governed about as far from those stated principles as possible.
Yes. I'm rather annoyed that I can no longer call myself a Republican because the party has been taken over by big-government social "conservatives".
He also says, by the way, that the Iraq war was about oil
True in the sense that everything in the Middle East is about oil. If they didn't have any, we'd just watch the various tribes kill each other and hold conferences about how terrible it is and how somebody should do something. See Africa.
Posted by: Brian | September 19, 2007 5:46 PM
A simple rule for shinking government in a fiscally responsible manner:
1) when running a defecit focus on shrinking spending.
2) when running a surplus focus on cutting taxes.
Funny how few politicians get this.
Posted by: James | September 20, 2007 1:31 AM
Joe Shelby | September 19, 2007 2:33 PM
I actually fail to understand your comment.
A couple of observations.
A balanced budget is a balanced budget...
It depends on how the "budget" is calculated. Unlike most state and local budgets, and most corporate budgets, too, the federal government does not distinguish between operating (current) expenditures and capital expendittures, the latter of which are bonded and amortized over a number of years. Why should I, as a taxpayer, be expected to pay for the total cost of construction of a road in year one, that will be used by people 40 years hence? Or construction of a school building, for that matter?
Like, say, "Faith Based Initiatives", or "an unjustified war".
I'm sorry, but the fact is that federal contractors, whether they are "faith based" or otherwise, can bid on federal contracts. On the same basis as non-faith-based contractors. And the faith based contractors should be subject to the same statutory limitations, and the same taxes as the non-faith contractors. That makes it for a level playing field.
The killer is
Such spending is to many just as reckless as the socialist-driven handouts (Social Security, etc) that some see as the remnants of the New Deal.
So, terminate social security. And stop forcing me to pay for your kids' education. The only interest that I have in paying for your kids' education is the expectation that they will help pay for my retirement. If they aren't going to do that, why should I contribute to paying for their education?
You seriously fail to understand what the social contract is. During our working years, we help support your children, in the expectation that, when they are in their working years (and we have gone into retirement) they will help support us. If you want to abridge that contract, let me know.
Posted by: raj | September 20, 2007 4:31 AM
On the subject matter of the post, it has long been known that St. Alan is nothing more than a bullshit artist. When he was at the Fed, he spread more bullshit than farmers here in southern Germany.
Posted by: raj | September 20, 2007 4:35 AM
Jim: I know exactly what the social contract is. I'm only giving that as a p.o.v. that *some* people have. I *NEVER* said it was my view (or that either extreme position was my view). I said "is to many", not "is to me".
As for "Faith Based Initiatives", there is plenty of justified criticism (and a number of lawsuits) that some of those projects do little more than (unconstitutional) evangelizing with the money they receive, or force the evangelical message along with the social services they give.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | September 20, 2007 11:17 AM
It seems like a lot of conservatives are coming out against Bush now, you know, now that it's safe to do so.
Looking forward to Ashcroft's book explaining that he never liked the fellow...
Posted by: Coin | September 20, 2007 5:50 PM