Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

The Bush Economy

Aired April 17, 2003 - 09:20   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: It did not take long for the president to turn his attention from Iraq to the economy. Tuesday at the White House this week, yesterday in Missouri, the president pushed for his tax cut plan as the way to spark economic growth. All this, again, conjuring up some recent history for the administration of the president's father, from 43 back to 41, earlier 1992, our senior analyst Jeff Greenfield has been looking into that. No big surprise here. It's a story that's been picked over so far. However, how long is shadow going to back to 1992.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: The principle shadow I've decided is on us. Apparently, you are not allowed to talk about this issue of the president and economy if you're a journalist, without shutting your eyes and repeating the following mantra. It is critical that this President Bush avoid the mistake of his father, President Bush, who after the Gulf War failed to provide attention to the economy, and thus was denied re-election -- unquote.

And you know what, I've got a feeling the president and Karl Rove know that. Just call me madcap.

HEMMER: I would say they're pretty smart people.

How much credit or lack credit can a president get for the health of an -- I've always thought, you know, when the economy is good, the president gets the credit, when the economy is bad, the president gets the credit.

GREENFIELD: You can lose an election or fail to win one with a good economy. Semi-incumbent Al Gore showed that. I don't know -- I think the last president to get re-elected with a bad economy was FDR in 1936, because people give him credit.

But the real irony, if that's the right word, is how relatively little a president can do. We have this notion that the president can pull a lever and change the economy, but you know, in this case, first of all, with all of the deficits, huge deficits, the idea of particular government action, a jobs-creation program, flat-out stimulation in old fashioned sense, there is no appetite for that in this Bush White House and no money.

But if you're talking about an economy weakened by what they call fundamentals, too much investments in the telecom industry or the shadow of 9/11 that is holding back investment, the president doesn't push a lot of buttons in the White House and say, OK, the economy is going to change. And one more quick thing, even supporters of this tax cut are very dubious about the kind of economic stimulation it can cause, particularly between now and the next election.

HEMMER: Do you spot an extra credit points, though, given the current economic climate, some of the hardships out there, and you have a popular president during war?

GREENFIELD: The history says that the voters don't give the president points, because it's not his fault. In 1980, it was the oil embargo that was a big reason for the inflation and the industrial recession. It happened on Jimmy Carter's watch, and he suffered, and in 1992, the year we all remember, because it was the other President Bush, the recession was over well before for the election, but Bush 41 still suffered because of the lingering sense of what had happened.

As I mentioned, with the exception of FDR, the idea that it's not the president's fault, that he's trying, hasn't helped a whole lot in re-elections.

Clearly, this White House wants to have the president, that's the other thing, we want him out there, we want him concerned. So the unanswered question is, if the economy stays bad, will voter say, he's trying, or, hey, you didn't do it, you're out of here.

HEMMER: History tells us a lot. Thank you, Jeff. Good to see you again. Jeff Greenfield.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired April 17, 2003 - 09:20   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: It did not take long for the president to turn his attention from Iraq to the economy. Tuesday at the White House this week, yesterday in Missouri, the president pushed for his tax cut plan as the way to spark economic growth. All this, again, conjuring up some recent history for the administration of the president's father, from 43 back to 41, earlier 1992, our senior analyst Jeff Greenfield has been looking into that. No big surprise here. It's a story that's been picked over so far. However, how long is shadow going to back to 1992.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: The principle shadow I've decided is on us. Apparently, you are not allowed to talk about this issue of the president and economy if you're a journalist, without shutting your eyes and repeating the following mantra. It is critical that this President Bush avoid the mistake of his father, President Bush, who after the Gulf War failed to provide attention to the economy, and thus was denied re-election -- unquote.

And you know what, I've got a feeling the president and Karl Rove know that. Just call me madcap.

HEMMER: I would say they're pretty smart people.

How much credit or lack credit can a president get for the health of an -- I've always thought, you know, when the economy is good, the president gets the credit, when the economy is bad, the president gets the credit.

GREENFIELD: You can lose an election or fail to win one with a good economy. Semi-incumbent Al Gore showed that. I don't know -- I think the last president to get re-elected with a bad economy was FDR in 1936, because people give him credit.

But the real irony, if that's the right word, is how relatively little a president can do. We have this notion that the president can pull a lever and change the economy, but you know, in this case, first of all, with all of the deficits, huge deficits, the idea of particular government action, a jobs-creation program, flat-out stimulation in old fashioned sense, there is no appetite for that in this Bush White House and no money.

But if you're talking about an economy weakened by what they call fundamentals, too much investments in the telecom industry or the shadow of 9/11 that is holding back investment, the president doesn't push a lot of buttons in the White House and say, OK, the economy is going to change. And one more quick thing, even supporters of this tax cut are very dubious about the kind of economic stimulation it can cause, particularly between now and the next election.

HEMMER: Do you spot an extra credit points, though, given the current economic climate, some of the hardships out there, and you have a popular president during war?

GREENFIELD: The history says that the voters don't give the president points, because it's not his fault. In 1980, it was the oil embargo that was a big reason for the inflation and the industrial recession. It happened on Jimmy Carter's watch, and he suffered, and in 1992, the year we all remember, because it was the other President Bush, the recession was over well before for the election, but Bush 41 still suffered because of the lingering sense of what had happened.

As I mentioned, with the exception of FDR, the idea that it's not the president's fault, that he's trying, hasn't helped a whole lot in re-elections.

Clearly, this White House wants to have the president, that's the other thing, we want him out there, we want him concerned. So the unanswered question is, if the economy stays bad, will voter say, he's trying, or, hey, you didn't do it, you're out of here.

HEMMER: History tells us a lot. Thank you, Jeff. Good to see you again. Jeff Greenfield.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com