I've paid far too little attention to Alan Greenspan over the years. He seemed to be the guy who made the Dow go up and down occasionally, but what was he to me? This past year NYTimes Columnist Paul Krugman (professor of economics at Princeton) has been paying more attention to him and thus, I have.
One problem I have with Greenspan is that his position is somehow seen as some non-partisan, above-politics kind of gig when the truth of the matter is that he is there to represent the best interests of U.S. Banks. That simple mission connects him to more politics than one human should have to deal with (and many would argue that his personal politics has made him fail this mission too).
Another problem I have with him is his obvious reversals in the past few years. When Clinton was President he said that the most important thing was to get rid of the defict and debt. Clinton did and when Bush came in office he said the most important thing was to quit paying down the debt so fast because we were in danger of having too much money (so tax cuts a-go-go), now he is saying the deficit and debt are the most important problems we face. What the hell?
I think Sen. Harry Reid was right when he compared him to J.Edgar Hoover in that his politics change with the sitting President and therefore he keeps his job and is often praised for it.
Those like Reid who voted against him retaking the post the last time around should be commended for having the balls. Most people in this country have bought into the PR and think he is some sort of financial god. Standing against someone with that kind of public opinion while in elected office has to be standing on some principles in my opinion.
Posted by dmason at March 17, 2005 12:42 PM