I am enjoying this series, of putting to use articles and essays that I thought interesting at the time, yet have languished unused, lo, these many months or years.
It Takes Chutzpah to Call This the "Obama Boom." Originally in the WSJ, I avoid the paywall with this link. There was sluggish, but steady economic growth during the Obama years. I have written previously why I considered the Democrats more responsible than Bush for the recession, and Obam had more hand in that than usually credited in the popular imagination. I mention that only to leave it aside. I think presidents matter less than congress, and congress matters less than secular changes - I also believe that there is some delay in the effects that government has. Psychological effects can change quickly, legislative changes may not come to full effect for years. I am always grateful when presidents at least don't ruin things, so I give Obama some credit. Donald Trump takes more credit than he deserves. Still, the effect has been lasting, and Trump deserves more credit than his critics give him, and Obama's part was weak, even if positive. February 2018
Death Rates From Mass Shootings. This lie has been difficult to kill. February 2018
Democrats and Dark Money. She writes for Open Secrets about political funding. I think it may be an evenhanded site, but am willing to be corrected on that. February 2018
The Nation's Toughest Gun-Control Law Made Massachusetts Less Safe. Originally in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby, I am again avoiding the paywall. February 2013
4 comments:
I generally agree with your conclusions regarding the timing of political impact to the economy but I think Presidential impact needs to be revised somewhat in light of the experience with Obama and Trump in the area of regulation. The formal legislative process still has an impact but I think what we've seen recently is that regulatory agencies have an effect that is more immediate and just as consequential. It's also changed over the last decade from the previous glacial pace of publishing proposed rules, obtaining input, and then revision to an abbreviated process that shortcuts around discussion. Obama quite openly used rule-making to implement his policies (the infamous 'pen and phone'), for example using EPA rules to stymie the construction or retrofitting of coal-fired generating stations. Trump has generally made it a priority to remove regulations with a 2 for 1 (eliminate two rules for each new rule proposed) policy that from some accounts I've read has been even more broadly successful at reducing the amount of regulation businesses must comply with.
That is persuasive, and I am incorporating it into my theory as a second major exception, in addition to the psychological effect.
They just can't bring themselves to believe that criminals will do illegally what they cannot do lawfully.
I agree with you that we generally focus on the president when we should be looking at Congress. Still, the president can have influence that combats the legislature's errors in a couple of ways: the veto, and the regulatory apparatus.
Post a Comment