2008 Woodie Awards
Alan Greenspan's new book attacks President Bush's lack of fiscal responsibility
Book claims President Bush has "swapped principle for power," a move which has lead to an unbalanced budget
William Green
Issue date: 9/20/07 Section: World Views
- Page 1 of 1
On Monday, Alan Greenspan's new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, hit shelves to both considerable fanfare and controversy. Greenspan served as chairman of the American Federal Reserve Board from 1987 until 2006, a period which included the stock market crash of October 1987, the fear following the September 11th attacks and the extended phase of economic growth during the Clinton years.
Considering the growing fear of recession following this past summer's sub-prime mortgage crisis, as well as continued deficit spending to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the release could not have come at a better time. Americans are considerably more concerned about the future than when Greenspan was replaced by current chairman Ben Bernanke. This, combined with ever-growing opposition to the war in Iraq, makes Greenspan's book a must read for the American public.
According to advance copies obtained by CNN, Greenspan claims that the Bush administration "swapped principle for power." This was in reference to the span of six years in which the administration did not veto a single spending bill sent by Congress, while simultaneously maintaining tax cuts and enduring the astronomical costs of the war in Iraq.
According to CNN, Greenspan elaborates further. Following an expression of dismay over bush's perceived lack of checks on Congressional spending, the response from the White House was "[Bush] thinks he can control [House Speaker Dennis Hastert] better by not antagonizing him." This seems to imply that Bush's tactic for maintaining support for the war was to adopt a carte blanche policy for Congressional spending.
It is becoming increasingly clear that fiscal responsibility has been abandoned by both parties in favor of temporary political gains. Unfortunately for those deeply concerned by this state of affairs, neither party has a leading candidate who can realistically promise a balanced budget.
The republican front-runners are keen to expand the war on terror and largely maintain the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, the expansive social programs, primarily universal healthcare, and well-intentioned desire to save social security and Medicare may well cripple the Democrats ability to run a budget surplus.
Although these are generalizations, the overall political climate is clearly hard on those representatives and candidates who wish to cut spending on programs that Americans have become very comfortable with. It is time for American politicians and citizens from every party to take a step back and truly assess the fiscal irresponsibility of the current administration and, when given the chance, to vote for a balanced budget.
Considering the growing fear of recession following this past summer's sub-prime mortgage crisis, as well as continued deficit spending to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the release could not have come at a better time. Americans are considerably more concerned about the future than when Greenspan was replaced by current chairman Ben Bernanke. This, combined with ever-growing opposition to the war in Iraq, makes Greenspan's book a must read for the American public.
According to advance copies obtained by CNN, Greenspan claims that the Bush administration "swapped principle for power." This was in reference to the span of six years in which the administration did not veto a single spending bill sent by Congress, while simultaneously maintaining tax cuts and enduring the astronomical costs of the war in Iraq.
According to CNN, Greenspan elaborates further. Following an expression of dismay over bush's perceived lack of checks on Congressional spending, the response from the White House was "[Bush] thinks he can control [House Speaker Dennis Hastert] better by not antagonizing him." This seems to imply that Bush's tactic for maintaining support for the war was to adopt a carte blanche policy for Congressional spending.
It is becoming increasingly clear that fiscal responsibility has been abandoned by both parties in favor of temporary political gains. Unfortunately for those deeply concerned by this state of affairs, neither party has a leading candidate who can realistically promise a balanced budget.
The republican front-runners are keen to expand the war on terror and largely maintain the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, the expansive social programs, primarily universal healthcare, and well-intentioned desire to save social security and Medicare may well cripple the Democrats ability to run a budget surplus.
Although these are generalizations, the overall political climate is clearly hard on those representatives and candidates who wish to cut spending on programs that Americans have become very comfortable with. It is time for American politicians and citizens from every party to take a step back and truly assess the fiscal irresponsibility of the current administration and, when given the chance, to vote for a balanced budget.
Be the first to comment on this story