The author has a bias that shows in the writing and content of the article. 'De-regulation' is a process that has it's roots and history long before this Bush Presidency and to assert such is associated with just one individuals 'economics' is a false assertion. For instance, he doesn't mention Clinton's signing of the repeal Glass-Steagall in 1999 which was the last of the Depression-era bulwarks against the merging of commercial and investment banks. The result being banks changing from a 'protective' culture to one of 'risktaking', meaning they could enter into the securities business. From such sprung CDS,SIV's,CDO's,etc.

Bushonomics is bankrupting the country with tax cuts, corporate welfare and an indefinite war waged on borrowed dollars. To simply say these policies have failed is quite the understatement.

Most of the story is on-point and adds perspective. He did not mention that unemployment is augmented by underemployment as good paying union jobs have been outsources and exported and many of the employed are working second tier jobs or two or three jobs. And as for the bush speechwriters who say his tax cuts save taxpayers and average of $1800, may they drown crossing a river with an average depth of 2 inches.

This skeptical, liberal view of economics that began as "VooDoo Economics" under Reagan, rightly sums up the failure to deliver goods to the "unwashed masses", who are awash in rising food and energy prices, foreclosures, and medically induced bankruptcies. Tax cuts could be productive if directed to areas of need that will give a return, reducing foreign dependency and building long term productivity. Instead, tax cuts for the wealthy have resulted in: #1. pricey art speculation, more Louis Vuitton and Rolex inventory in closets, customized yachts and airplanes, and luxury resort developments. #2. massive investment in military, homeland security and police privatization and mergers of already monstrously powerful ... More »