The mainstream bipartisan economists are almost completely united against what Bush has done, and in this article are saying their colleagues have destroyed their professional reputations by being part of the administration.

I keep asking for evidence from experts who support what Bush does. I'm open to the other side of the story but there doesn't seem to be any. I see no science on the side of Bush in terms of economics. Also many right wing blogs have turned against Bush, and they basically say exactly what I've been saying. You can't paint me as a pinko for it when Balloon Juice, Andrew Sullivan, and Tacitus agree.

Surely after reading Balloon Juice you know he's no liberal. All these people are saying the same thing as me. Beyond partisan defences where's the other side? Even Ed agreed with Andrew Sullivan, I nearly fell over when that happened.

This is corporate or right wing socialism. The reason for all this spending is pork for Republican companies who get contracts from it. The tax loan and dividend tax loan all target Republican strongholds who pony up cash at elections. There's nothing mysterious about it, Bush has created the spending problems by giving lavishly to his base. Now here is usually the point where someone says he's part of the Republican base and didn't get much so none of this is true.

But they don't give the hundreds of millions in campaign funds, the ones that do get the pork. As to Gary's idea that the Republicans realise they've hit the iceberg and that the economy is really sinking it may be true. All this may be an organised attempt to grab the limited lifeboats rather than pumping out the bilges. Something has to explain the complete lack of attempts at trying to solve the budgetary problems except lying about them.