As the Congressional Budget Office and others have pointed out, one impact of the Bush tax cuts has been to shift more of the tax burden off the wealthy an onto the middle class. Bush is not middle class; what does he care?
But, what if the tax cuts for the wealthy were not actually good for the wealthy?
A colleague of the incoming head of the Federal Reserve System made just that argument in a New York Times business article over the holiday.
Because Bush-o-nomics is 'faith-based' the fact that the tax cuts might not actually be in the best interests of the wealthy will not get in the way of the President and his allies wanting further cuts.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the administration is now finding it difficult to recruit serious economics to fill positions in the government.
The White House and Congress need as many as five academic economists of high caliber, and it's not obvious where they will come from. The Republican Party may be facing something of a shallow bench.Surely, they'll find a handful of cronies willing to take the post. Michael Brown could well turn out to be the rule, rather than the exception in this incompetent administration.
"Bush's reputation in at least the academic community is about as low as you can imagine," said William A. Niskanen, who was a member of the council during President Ronald Reagan's first term and is now chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group. "A lot of people would not be willing to give up a good tenured position for a position in the White House."