Greenspan criticizes Bush policies in memoir

Reuters ^ | Sat Sep 15, 2007 | Mark Felsenthal

[indcons]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sharply criticizes President George W. Bush's administration and Republican congressional leaders in his memoir for putting political imperatives ahead of sound economic policies, several newspapers reported on Friday.

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," Greenspan writes of the Bush administration.

Accounts of Greenspan's book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," which is due to be published Monday, appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.

Greenspan said he unsuccessfully urged the White House to veto "out-of-control" spending bills while the Republicans controlled Congress.

Republicans "deserved" to lose control of Congress in last year's election because in their willingness to approve spending measures that would benefit Republicans even at the cost of fiscal prudence, they "swapped principle for power," he said.

Greenspan's congressional testimony in favor of tax cuts during the early part of the Bush administration has been criticized by some for giving the green light to Congress to approve the president's fiscal policies.

However, the former Fed chief has subsequently said Congress ignored his recommendations that it accompany any substantial tax cuts with safeguards to protect against future deficits. In his book, he acknowledges that people who warned him that his words would be used selectively were right.

[SamuraiScot]

they "swapped principle for power," he said.

Gosh, that description rings a bell, doesn't it, Mr. Andrea Mitchell?

[nyyankeefan]

Greenspan criticizes Bush policies in memoir....

this is a A Willing Suspension of Disbelief!!!!

[quesera]

Unfortunately Mr. Greenspan is right. Our republican Congress failed us with runaway spending and our President whom I still support, failed us by refusing to use his veto to keep Congress in check. I would not go so far to say they deserved what they got by losing the majority in Congress though because the alternative is much worse.

[Tarpon]

Write book, bash Bush, sell book. Snore.

Greenspan is a Clinton lacky. always has been.

[em2vn]

You are correct. The Republican congress didn’t spend like drunken sailors and Jorge didn’t fail to veto any of their spending bills.

[Falcon4.0]

Greenspan has always been terrified of the inflation boogie man, but supports higher taxes. What is more inflationary than taxes? The last time we had real inflation to worry about was under Jimma Carter, when the top tax rate was at what 78%.

[Ceebass]

.>>>Unfortunately Mr. Greenspan is right. Our republican Congress failed us with runaway spending <<<<

I agree, but I see the article is from reuters and I wonder what Greenspan had to say about clinton economic policy (if there was any)

As for Greenspan, his policy of bailing out bad investments by major wall street players resulted in several unsustainable bubbles and financial crises. Unfortunately he has too nondesript of a persona for any tell all books about him to sell.

[kittymyrib]

Well, what would you expect from Mr. Andrea Mitchell?

[sirchtruth]

Unfortunately Mr. Greenspan is right. Our republican Congress failed us with runaway spending and our President whom I still support, failed us by refusing to use his veto to keep Congress in check. I would not go so far to say they deserved what they got by losing the majority in Congress though because the alternative is much worse.

Exactly right, except, I didn't believe Repubs deseved to lose either, however now I do.

We need to clean out the "rino/moderates" and replace with conservatively principled men and women.

10 years later we got assbackwards from what we invisioned when repubs took control of congress in 1996 after 40 years, now we're right back in the same 40 year dilima, because of moderate repubs.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

You are absolutely correct. Democrats are far, far worse. That doesn’t excuse Republicans but to ignore the consequences of Democrats in charge of the whole show is very, very dangerous.

[OESY]

Is Greenspan complaining that Messrs. O'Neil and Lindsay wouldn't talk with him despite their weekly luncheons together? This from the Father of two recessions, the Clinton stock market bubble-crash, and today's sub-prime lending debacle. His criticism of Bush is unfounded. Greenspan was always off on his own, discouraging contrary advice and ensuring unanimity through his selections for the Federal Open Market Committee membership. Everything had to fit his Ayn Rand economic model.

Amazingly naive, Greenspan recommended dumping stocks when the Dow reached 6,000 four years before it doubled to 12,000, complaining that a growing "wealth effect" (an anathema to Socialists) was bad for America. Then he sounded the alarm about the specter of inflation--both low and dormant, but this expert never owned any stock. At the end of his tenure at the Fed, pension plans lost $4-$7 trillion in investment value.

In summary, Greenspan oversaw what Democrats called (wrongly) the worst economy since FDR's. Surely, Bush didn't dictate monetary policy to him; the president instead followed Greenspan's advice and cut taxes, thus ushering another extension of prosperity that began with Reaganomics, a fact few in the media are permitted to mention.

.

[bilhosty]

Yehp the GOP deserved to lose all right. But, the Donk’s never deserve to win. So where do we go from here. We need a completely different crew being nominated next year. Someone from the North with different policies. Some one who makes a cultural and ideological break from the current regime. Some one who is Center-right and will have an aggressive set of policies and a major agenda. Sone one wh says this what I will stand for and I will move heaven and earth to get it done. And then do it.

[popdonnelly]

Note that this is the only thing Reuters quotes from the entire book. But, of course, there is no animosity towards Bush on the part of Reuters.

[popdonnelly]

Agreed. My only complaint about Bush economic policies is they weren’t conservative enough.

[Tarpon]

The Republican congress didn't spend like drunken sailors and Jorge didn't fail to veto any of their spending bills.

In the last few years, this has been the complaint, from mostly Republicans. It's all fixed, now that we have the real deal, the TAX and spend Marxists back, right?

Seems odd that Greenspan forgets all that Clinton did, all the errors he himself made, and focuses in on Bush. Lets see, what caused the stock market dot-com bubble and what was it designed to do? hmmm And the excessive rapid raising of interest rates in the face of escalating oil prices, causing a crash and the resultant recession in 2000-2002? hmmm. I think I need to ask the Goracle what the plan was. 9/11 proves how Greenspan trying to manipulate the market to pacify people for political reasons, crashes into reality.

No one complained about the Bush tax cuts at the time, no one complained about the economy measures Bush took at the time to prevent the US economy from failing after 9/11. Not a peep from Greenspan was there. And how about that roaring economy that resulted, no one wants to talk about that, since most stats beat the 1990s by a lot.

I will modify my line ...
Write book, bash Bush, sell Books to daily kooks — and other left wing BSD infected loons.

Greenspan is another useless Clinton lackey on his knees hoping Hillary wins the next election. Maybe Greenspan is a late convert to Marxist-Healthcare to help the free market economy. Andrea Mitchell can provide more over at the Nothing-But-Crap-TV channel. The daily kooks love him.

[Brilliant]

I have to agree that the GOP spent too much money. Of course, the Dems are spending more.

[RightWhale]

• putting political imperatives ahead of sound economic policies

  Imperatives take precedence. Them's the rules.

[rubeng]

Ouch.This one hurts.

[balls]

Greenspan is an admitted staunch Republican and has been so all his life. He is a follower of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and therefore, believes it is Capitalism and the Constitution that makes this country great, in spite of the government.
It sounds like his book will be a really good read!