Greenspan: Nostalgia for the Ford administration, plus a lack of self-awareness, made me do it

Upon opening my copy of The Age of Turbulence, the first thing I checked was the acknowledgments, to make sure my friend Peter Petre got some credit for, uh, ghostwriting the book. Sure enough:

Peter Petre has been my collaborator in the writing. He taught me the age-old art of narrating in the first person. I had always viewed myself as an observer of events, never as part of them. The transition was a struggle and Peter was patient.

So it wasn’t really all written long-hand in the bathtub, I guess.

Because Peter is my friend, I can’t review the book. I do think it’s okay to comment on the substance, though. And so after the acknowledgments, I turned to Chapter 10, “Downturn,” to read Greenspan’s take on the infamous 2001 Senate testimony in which he appeared to wholeheartedly endorse the Bush tax cuts. This passage struck me:

During those last days of December and first days of January, I indulged in a bit of fantasy, envisioning this as the government that might have existed had Gerald Ford garnered the extra 1 percent of the vote he’d needed to edge past Jimmy Carter into a second term. … I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets.

Greenspan’s story line, then, is that he wanted to believe that the Bushies would do the right thing, and thus was willing to cut them lots of slack. It was only later that he realized that, unlike every other presidential administration he had experienced, the Bush gang had absolutely no interest in adjusting its political plans to changing economic reality.

That brings us back to the question, raised by Karen Tumulty this morning, of why the heck he didn’t say something sooner once he realized Bush was going to be an inveterate budget buster?

I think it’s because Greenspan is an astute politician who didn’t want to ruin his relationship with an increasingly popular president. Greenspan’s explanation in the book is that he naively misunderstood how the press and Congress would selectively construe his carefully balanced statements about taxes and the budget. This seems a bit rich. Although I guess if you believe that line from the acknowledgments, where Greenspan says “I had always viewed myself as an observer of events, never as part of them,” then maybe he really didn’t understand the impact he could have.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Associated Press

    Apple CEO Cook Gives Up $75M in Stock Dividends

    NEW YORK — Apple CEO Tim Cook is giving up $75 million in dividends on restricted stock that the company is awarding to all of its employees.

    In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, Apple Inc. said that Cook requested that his restricted stock units not receive dividends. The dividends that Apple workers are getting amount to $2.65 per quarter for each restricted stock unit held. The shares are not normally eligible to receive dividends, so Apple’s decision is a perk for its employees.

    The Bomb Hidden in Mitt Romney's Education PlanSlate

    Associated Press

    Study: Typical CEO Pay Up 6% to $9.6 Million

    NEW YORK — Profits at big U.S. companies broke records last year, and so did pay for CEOs.

    The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.

  • nemo

    “I think it’s because Greenspan is an astute politician who didn’t want to ruin his relationship with an increasingly popular president.”

    In other words, Greenspan was a total cynic who only wanted to make life easier on himself, no matter what damage it did to the economy and the country, no matter that his own job was never at risk.

  • p_lukasiak

    “Greenspan’s explanation in the book is that he naively misunderstood how the press and Congress would selectively construe his carefully balanced statements about taxes and the budget.”

    um, that doesn’t explain why he didn’t bother to correct the “misconstruction” of his testimony…

blog comments powered by Disqus