Last Tuesday I critiqued one of President Obama’s comments in my post “Which is the decade of profligacy?”  Mr. Jonathan Chait, Senior Editor of The New Republic, wrote a response which he labeled “the beatdown that was nine years in the making,” and his “smackdown post.”  I welcome TNR readers who are new to my blog.

Mr. Chait mistook my intent:

Keith Hennessey is tired of the Obama Administration dragging its predecessor’s name through the mud. … Hennessey actually tries to make the argument that Obama’s policies are more profligate than Bush’s.

My intent was instead to correct the logic of and critique the absence of policy solutions from President Obama.  I would note that President Bush has remained silent while repeatedly attacked, to allow President Obama the running room he needs to make decisions.

I will respond here to Mr. Chait’s arguments (using his numbering).

1.  On the decline in surpluses during the Bush Administration

Argument:  Mr. Chait writes, “To cast the Administration as victims of a ‘mistake’ requires a staggering level of chutzpah.”

Response 1:  If I created the impression of victimization, I apologize.  Yes, the tax cut and the post-9/11 spending increased the budget deficit relative to what it otherwise would have been.  So did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Medicare drug benefit.  The Obama Administration suggests, however, that the entire decline in the surplus was the result of policy decisions.  That is clearly incorrect.  CBO said that 40% of the surplus decline from 2001 to 2002 was the result of forecasting error and a failure to predict the recession.  The other 60% was the results of policy choices by President Bush and the Republican Congress, most importantly the tax cut.

Read the full post here