In short, in looking at real people's lives in America--i.e. looking at average wealth,

average standard of living,

average access to health care, or

average access to government aid in an emergency--,

In terms of cost of living in America over the last 7 years, fuel is up over 100 percent, and  education costs are nearly 50% higher.  Moreover, health care costs are up by at least 80% at a time when up to 50 million Americans (1/6 of the total population) are without any insurance.

It should be noted that Beinhart's prescient  article was written before the housing market collapsed after June 2007.

As far as measuring any economic success of the Bush administration, only the Dow Jones had done well as a benchmark under Bush 2 economics.  However, once the housing market went belly up last summer, even those illusory gains were erased.

This contrasts with a the Dow Jones having increased during the Clinton Administration by 320% in 8 years.  (The Clinton Administration applied efficiency to spending and taxing far better than his predecessors, Bush, Sr. or Reagan.)

Beinhart notes that when "a government wants an economy to grow, it throws money at it."

This "throwing of money at a problem economy", actually only works to a small degree. 

For example, the Ronald Reagan increased government spending drastically in the 1980s-however, only mostly in the areas of security and defense spending-and yet the recessions came again and under his presidency the Dow Jones crashed again-but at a crash level which had not occurred since 1929.

This is because (1) tax breaks were being given mostly to the wealthiest sectors of the economy, so (2) people and banks which then had more money to take home during the Reagan era, looked around to invest in things, like stocks for quick earnings. 

In short, these Ayne Rand wannabees weren't investing initially in greater American  infrastructure-like trains, new electrification, or new road networks-as had occurred in the U.S. in both the 19th and after the Depression in the 20th. 

Meanwhile, as economists had alreadt noted, (3) spending on defense is likely to have the least direct trickle down effect on the median wage earner and/or small businesses in America. 

Therefore, when in 1986--and thereafter-- Congress had to begin to get the Reagan and Bush mis-spending in line, cut-backs came on defense projects, like the Star Wars program. 

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6