William F. Buckley comments
on Bush and the economy. He spends time on the simplistic notions that taxes reduce incentives to work, welfare reduces incentives to work, etc. Then he says this:
If government "does nothing," natural inclinations, as prophesied by Adam Smith, are unharnessed, productivity increases, and prosperity is enhanced. But the political adage goes further than that. It tells you to do nothing but to affect to be doing a great deal.
That, two months ago, is the kernel of President Bush's economic policy. Much of it is indeed laissez faire, but there is a hard sprinkling of government programs there, to give at least rhetorical help to those Americans who have lost their jobs, lost their pension funds, and struggle to meet their mortgage payments. What is being asked now, a month before the political payday, is: Are those words from Bush in August hard-hitting enough to persuade the voters that he has a serious concern other than the future of Saddam Hussein?
Indeed. Are those words
enough to persuade? Has Bush affected
to be doing a great deal? Has the rhetorical help
done any good?
Here we have a leading light of the conservative movement stating explicitly that Bush has done nothing about the economy
. If the Democrats don't use that kind of political manna, they're fools.