October 7, 2002 6:39 pm - You know, I'm not the brightest guy in the world.  Lot's of stuff goes right over my head.  And as ignorant as I am about stuff, there are millions upon millions who make me look like a friggin' Einstein.  Take the people who were polled about President Bush and his handling of the economy.  Do people actually think the guy sits in the Oval Office pushing buttons (not the nuclear ones) and pulling levers, and if he does so in the right order, our economy hums along?  I think that we are slowly, inexorably declining as a nation as the collective ignorance from decades of incompetent public schooling begins to take its toll. For more on the silly idea that presidents "manage" economies, here is my letter to the local rag.  Granted, most people can't read, and the ones that do probably wouldn't know an economic concept if it hit them on the forehead.  Oh well, you can't say I don't do my part, however futile it might be.
		To the Editor: The latest poll gives President Bush poor marks for his handling of the economy.  I've never understood this notion.  How does a president "handle" an economy? As one ignorant woman suggests, lower interest rates might do the trick.  If this were the road to economic salvation, why would any country have interest rates at all?  Certainly Japan is a glaring example of this ill-conceived thinking.  Despite interest rates hovering around 0.25 percent, Japan Inc. is mired in a decade long recession.  Did she ever bother to ruminate on this nagging reality? Of course, the president cannot set interest rates.  The job of creating easy credit and funny money rests with the Federal Reserve Board, a collection of unelected and unaccountable bankers headed by the monetary wizard himself, Alan Greenspan.  Funny how they were singing his praises during the heady '90s before the bubble burst.  Do those being polled understand this?  Not very likely. The government can tinker with fiscal policies, yet that responsibility is rightly given to the legislature by our Constitution.  Only the House of Representatives can initiate a revenue bill.  Do people get asked how the House "handles" the economy?  Would people want Congress to spend more than they already do?  Presumably this extra revenue would be collected from rich people or the guy down the street.   Or maybe we could increase taxes on corporations (as long as those corporations don't pay one's salary or dividends on one's stock).  Surely this would give us a booming economy, right? Seen in this light, the president has only one tangible weapon at his disposal: the veto.  President Bush could inform the Congress that its tax-and-spend policies are economically disastrous, and that prosperity can and must rely solely on free markets.  Doing so would cause the government to shut down while Congress bickers about which voters to buy off.  Imagine thousands of unemployed bureaucrats forced to do something useful for a change.  Horrors!  Such an act would be principled and courageous, which is why we won't see it happen anytime soon.