Why Would Anyone Want to Be President in 2010?

U.S. Chamber of Commerce ^ | August 2007 | Dr, Martin Regalia

[MHT]

Is There a 'Perfect Storm' on the Horizon?

Last month I promised to write another column about the alternative minimum tax (AMT). I've decided to save that topic for a later date in order to give the various AMT reform proposals percolating in Congress time to come into clearer focus.

This month I'd like to draw a contrast between my short-term economic forecast with the possible economic scenario a few years down the road. Our near-term forecast remains relatively positive. We see solid, albeit nonspectacular, growth over the remainder of this year, with some slight acceleration in early 2008. Job growth should maintain a modest pace, and core inflation should continue to moderate. Interest rates remain steady at the short end of the yield curve, but we expect to see some increase among longer-term rates as risk is once again priced into the markets. Of course, this assumes that the housing market doesn't pitch into the abyss and, instead, begins to improve by early next year.

Rest of article http://www.uschamber.com/publications/magazine/2007/august/0708_6a.htm

[MHT]

If there is so much muck on the horizon, maybe it would be ok to NOT have the White House and Congress....At least this is a "just desserts" reward for Hillary unless the press can spin her recession into the greatest economic news of all time!

[Cementjungle]

So the plot of this economic "Perfect Storm" would go something like this. An aging economy sets sail on a relatively tranquil economic sea, only to be beset with gale force headwinds of a tax increase, building seas from lower productivity growth, a hail-storm of Fed interest rate increases, and a final tidal wave of currency problems. As I said at the beginning, this isn't a forecast (or even a good movie plot), but it is something to think about, especially if you are running for president in 2008.

What happens in 2010 depends a lot on who we elect next year.

[dr_lew]

Why Would Anyone Want to Be President in 2010?

Because they'll be able to blame everything on Bush!

[MHT]

There are some "givens" regardless of who is President. The Bush tax cuts are going to expire because we will have both houses with Democrat majorities. They want the money and cannot resist the extra $1 TRILLION OVER FIVE YEARS--almost five times the increase the Clinton tax hike produced. A Republican President couldn't forestall that reality. That increase alone is going to effect savings and capital formation and, if we are attacked again, the bounce back will not be as quick or dramatic. That part of his perfect storm theory seems inevitable.

We also cannot ignore the flood of boomers who are going to be getting Social Security (which was never "fixed") or Medicare. At best, it's Medicare; at worst, some new health care from Hillary that is going to be universal, ineffective, and expensive. Even the best scenario without Hillary-care is going to be a serious drag on growth.

[MHT]

I thought the same thing but, in reality, how long can Hillary blame everything on Bush, even with a willing media? After 3-1/2 years, will she still be able to blame Bush for troops in Iraq? For a Social Security mess that they refused to clean up? For the after-effects of tax increases which will eventually effect the real middle-class?

[Cementjungle]

A Republican President couldn't forestall that reality.

A strong president *can* influence policy, despite a Democrat Congress, especially on the wave of a big win. We've met big challenges in the past, and can do it again with the proper leadership. That said, I don't see that leadership emerging right now.

[dr_lew]

Well, in 2010, she would have ( would will have ? ) been in office for 1+ years.