Wolcott on Bartlett

My, my, how times have changed. And one of my favorites the brilliant Mr. Wolcott takes his rapier mind and pen to make it all clear.

Bruce Bartlett, formerly a Kool-Aid drinking Bushie, until he was shown the door at the National Center for Policy Analysis for having contrarian and Non-Bushie Orthodox views, has a new book out. Now, Mr. Bartlett is a supply-side economist who has written extensively bashing the Shrill One, Mr. Krugman (in full disclosure one of my heroes).

But now he appears to be the basher and sounding very shrill himself. Hmmm. The rapier mind of Mr. Wolcott takes him on and is brilliant.

A taste:

Ah, sweet irony of life. It was less than three years ago that Bruce Bartlett, a supply-side economist who's held a bouquet of policy-adviser positions, was writing columns trying to dump ice water on the "angry," "inflammatory," "apoplectic" Paul Krugman. But last October Bartlett, a sure-as-shootin' Reagan conservative, was hustled to the exit from his post at the National Center for Policy Analysis for impure thoughts and words that violated the rightwing think-tank's canon.

Next month will see the publication of his new book about Bush's superbad economic policy, and, my my, does much of it sound Krugmanesque, an adjective that I consider a compliment. Bartlett emerges from these pages drenched in an auburn shade of Bitter Disillusionment, and the title alone tells you how fed-up, cheesed-off, and ready to bring on the funk he is:

Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy

Four presidents dominate this book: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the Son. And the thesis of the book is that Bush is much closer to Nixon than Reagan, and that conservatives have reason to rue that they ever mau-mau'd Clinton about Monica. An unharassed, unbesieged Clinton might have truly reformed Social Security in his second term, according to Bartlett. The Monica follies made that impossible. Yet history will record that in economic Clinton was the far more prudent, serious, and conscientious leader.

"I think it is telling that Bush’s Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, was far better on the budget than he has been. Clinton vetoed bills because they spent too much. Bush never does. Clinton not only reduced the deficit, but he actually cut spending. Bush has increased both. Clinton abolished an entitlement program. Bush created an extremely expensive new one. One can still argue about whether Clinton was a better president or a better man than Bush, but on the budget there is no ambiguity. Clinton was much better.

Now was Mr. Bartlett during his service to Bush Co. merely delusional and now disillusioned? This is the question I always have about these former Kool-Aid drinkers. What the hell were they thinking in the first place? It isn’t as if anyone who was slightly interested couldn’t find out who and what George W. Bush was prior to being President. This knowledge would have given you a really clear idea as to what was going to transpire during his presidency. I know I have not been shocked by anything he has done and I am no big time policy wonk.

So, why are these guys SHOCKED, SHOCKED?

I think that it is time to seriously re-evaluate how we decide who is a policy wonk worthy of our consideration. Because if I knew that Bush was a corporatist stooge who was going to loot the U.S. Treasury for the benefit of his corporate masters and in the process run up a deficit to beat all deficits and plunge the American Economy into virtual bankruptcy, where were these so called professionals who supported his every move and are now decrying his economic policies?

I am so tired of these mea culpas. Enough already.

You all, Mr. Bartlett, et al., assisted George W. Bush in screwing and looting this nation’s coffers.

You need to stand up, be a man and own up to it.