Economic Superhero Joe Stiglitz Slams G.W. Bush


Joe Stiglitiz is a somebody.

The Nobel Laureate is one of the greatest economists ever to walk the planet and he takes a stand against former President George W. Bush and his disastrous eight years in the oval office in this terrific story. Stiglitz goes so far as to allege that Bush has done more harm to the United States than al-Qaeda, endangering both our global leadership and economy prosperity by spending irresponsibly as he was pushing through tax cuts for the rich, powerful and politically generous.

I know what you’re thinking: “big deal, we hear stuff like this all the time from the political pundits of the far right and left.” Well, Joe Stiglitz is not a political pundit. If you rolled up Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, Michelle Malkin and every other political media whore you would still have the intellectual equivalent of his left nut.

Quite simply, Joe Stiglitz is one of the smartest people on the planet. That’s why it’s a big deal when he takes a stand like this.

Stiglitz is the guy with his name on all the economic textbooks; the former chief economist of The World Bank; and the kind of big brain who usually tries to avoid taking a side on anything that even sniffs of partisan politics unless something is very, very wrong.

“The September 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaeda were meant to harm the United States, and they did, but in ways that Osama bin Laden probably never imagined, Stiglitz wrote in this outstanding article from Project Syndicate.

pull“President George W. Bush’s response to the attacks compromised the United States’ basic principles, undermined its economy, and weakened its security. The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable, but the subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to al-Qaeda – as much as Bush tried to establish a link.

“That war of choice quickly became very expensive – orders of magnitude beyond the $60bn claimed at the beginning – as colossal incompetence met dishonest misrepresentation. Indeed, when Linda Bilmes and I calculated the United States’ war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3-5tn. Since then, the costs have mounted further.

“With almost 50 per cent of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health-care costs will total $600-900bn. But the social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable. 

“Even if Bush could be forgiven for taking the United States, and much of the rest of the world, to war on false pretenses, and for misrepresenting the cost of the venture, there is no excuse for how he chose to finance it. His was the first war in history paid for entirely on credit.

“As the US went into battle, with deficits already soaring from his 2001 tax cut, Bush decided to plunge ahead with yet another round of tax “relief” for the wealthy.

“Today, the US is focused on unemployment and the deficit. Both threats to America’s future can, in no small measure, be traced to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Increased defense spending, together with the Bush tax cuts, is a key reason why the US went from a fiscal surplus of 2 per cent of GDP when Bush was elected to its parlous deficit and debt position today. Direct government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2tn – $17,000 for every US household – with bills yet to be received increasing this amount by more than 50 per cent.

“Moreover, as Bilmes and I argued in our book The Three Trillion Dollar War, the wars contributed to the United States’ macroeconomic weaknesses, which exacerbated its deficits and debt burden. Then, as now, disruption in the Middle East led to higher oil prices, forcing Americans to spend money on oil imports that they otherwise could have spent buying goods produced in the US. But then the US Federal Reserve hid these weaknesses by engineering a housing bubble that led to a consumption boom.

“It will take years to overcome the excessive indebtedness and real-estate overhang that resulted. Ironically, the wars have undermined the United States’ (and the world’s) security, again in ways that Bin Laden could not have imagined.

“An unpopular war would have made military recruitment difficult in any circumstances. But, as Bush tried to deceive the US about the wars’ costs, he underfunded the troops, refusing even basic expenditures – say, for armoured and mine-resistant vehicles needed to protect American lives, or for adequate health care for returning veterans. A US court recently ruled that veterans’ rights have been violated. (Remarkably, the Obama administration claims that veterans’ right to appeal to the courts should be restricted!)

“Military overreach has predictably led to nervousness about using military power, and others’ knowledge of this threatens to weaken US security as well. But the United States’ real strength, more than its military and economic power, is its “soft power,” its moral authority. And this, too, was weakened: as the US violated basic human rights like habeas corpus and the right not to be tortured, its longstanding commitment to international law was called into question.

“In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and its allies knew that long-term victory required winning hearts and minds. But mistakes in the early years of those wars complicated that already-difficult battle. The wars’ collateral damage has been massive: by some accounts, more than a million Iraqis have died, directly or indirectly, because of the war.

“According to some studies, at least 137,000 civilians have died violently in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last ten years; among Iraqis alone, there are 1.8m refugees and 1.7m internally displaced people. Not all of the consequences were disastrous.

“The deficits to which the US’ debt-funded wars contributed so mightily are now forcing the US to face the reality of budget constraints. US military spending still nearly equals that of the rest of the world combined, two decades after the end of the Cold War. Some of the increased expenditures went to the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader Global War on Terrorism, but much of it was wasted on weapons that don’t work against enemies that don’t exist.

“Now, at last, those resources are likely to be redeployed, and the US will likely get more security by paying less. Al-Qaeda, while not conquered, no longer appears to be the threat that loomed so large in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But the price paid in getting to this point, in the US and elsewhere, has been enormous – and mostly avoidable.

“The legacy will be with us for a long time. It pays to think before acting.”