I have great respect for the work done by the Cato Institute. I attended one of their week-long economic seminars a couple of years ago, thanks to my generous brother, and was greatly impressed and informed by their work. I still refer to the copious notes I took there.
But Alan Reynolds fails to see that Obama intends the results of his actions. Reynolds explains Obama’s actions through abysmal economic ignorance:
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed (November 2) President Obama wrote that “in the eight years after” Bill Clinton left office, “we followed a different path. Bigger tax cuts for the wealthy we couldn’t afford. . . . The result of this top-down economics? Falling incomes, record deficits, the slowest job growth in half a century, and an economic crisis . . .”
Obama had taken up that theme during the first presidential debate, arguing that “The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with . . . the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”
This is a remarkably imaginative theory — albeit one that reveals appalling economic illiteracy. Who else would have imagined that the housing bust and subprime-mortgage crisis were actually caused by cutting the top two tax rates in mid-2003?
He goes on say that at least Obama is consistent in his