What is a complete mystery is where President Bush has been during the biggest economic crisis in decades? What may trump that, for the moment, is why he is down in Peru at an economic conference. What kind of information would he provide to developing economies? If the strongest economy in the world has been kicked in the gonads by his economic policies, what is the likelihood that those less robust would be able to survive? Isn't this sort of analogous to having the proprietress of a whore house holding forth on the virtues of chastity?
What is also puzzling is how the pundit class, especially those on Fox*, have been holding forth about President-elect Obama's economic policies. What is he going to do to fix it? What are his plans? Doesn't he understand that his plans are liable to have a negative effect on the economy? Doesn't he know that tax increases on the wealthy will inhibit growth? Doesn't he know that free trade (even though it may not be particularly free with the trading partners) is a good thing? And. . . . Haven't they noticed that he's not in charge yet?
So let's reset here.
(1) Who was in charge during the collapse of the economy?
(2) Who still has the job of leading the country?
Think about the meeting earlier this month between Bush and Obama, when Bush was showing the new digs to Obama. Obama came out and said that he wanted action on support for the domestic automakers. Bush said that he wasn't interested in going down that road. . .unless Congress supported a trade deal with Columbia. There are 355,000 people directly employed in the U.S. by the Detroit Three. How many people in this country are directly employed by the Columbians?
The stewardship of the economy under the Bush Administration has been nothing short of an abomination. Unless President Bush is going to forego his salary for the next two months, it would be helpful if he were to come out with his plan for helping salvage this economy. Of course, the danger is that he might misconstrue "salvage" for "savage."
*Funny thing about all that blather about how Fox positions itself against "the mainstream media." Fox is owned by News Corporation. And this is from its "Investor Information": "News Corporation (NYSE: NWS, NWS.A; ASX: NWS, NWSLV) had total assets as of September 30, 2008 of approximately US$61 billion and total annual revenues of approximately US$33 billion." Seems pretty "mainstream" to me.