Arguments from ‘Dubya’ apologists have been consistent, even if implicit. In fact, until Rubio’s SOTU response, I thought mainstream Republican attitudes toward taxes and spending may have relaxed somewhat. Romney was interested in closing loopholes for the rich, Obama was interested in that and more and a fun race was had by all. Arguments about the economy at large, whether on FOX, CSPAN, or your Thanksgiving table, always devolve to the question of inheritance versus ownership.
It is an inconvenient distinction for both parties, because if Republicans are willing to concede that Bush, for the most part, got his way concerning economic decisions–they must admit that a combination of low taxes and high spending are bad economic policy and therefore led us to the recession. Republicans seem to have conceded this, given their quiet disinheritance and insistence on low taxes AND low spending–a return to Reagan’s “government is the problem” credo. It is inconvenient for Obama because at what point is a crappy recovery the recession’s fault and at what point is it his? This is invariably the end of the argument because neither side has a satisfying answer, yet it remains the crux upon which all economic faith is placed by either party. Democrats think recoveries are slow and that obstructionism is all that holds a burgeoning Obama economy back. Republicans think that the cost of Obamacare, meeting regulations, and the rising cost of energy and petrol deter business growth.