Belcher Cannot Keep Hand From Sabotage

As most who read here know, I like to give people nicknames: Nancy "the Stumbler" Pelosi, Chris "Bread Slice" Dodd, etc. I have long considered Alan Greenspan "the Belcher" but until now have not posted it. During his term as Fed Chairman it seemed he had an affinity to periodically "belch" out a comment that would have an immediate affect on the market. Usually it was not favorable for the economy, but sometimes he would be forced to say something nice. One might excuse this little habit and assume it was part of the job. Now that he no longer holds the position, such antics can only be driven by extreme hubris.

In the last week alone Greenspan has been belching comments about a potential downturn in the economy. In the third episode I have read he is now predicting there is a 30% chance of a recession in 2007. (Buuurrrp) A story in Bloomberg says:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said there's a ``one-third probability'' of a U.S. recession this year and that the current expansion won't have the staying power of its decade-long predecessor.

``We are in the sixth year of a recovery; imbalances can emerge as a result,'' Greenspan, 81, said in an interview yesterday at his office in downtown Washington. ``Ten-year recoveries have been part of a much broader global phenomenon. The historically normal business cycle is much shorter'' and is likely to be this time, he added.

Greenspan's outlook contrasts with the prediction of his successor Ben S. Bernanke, who told Congress last week that the economy may strengthen this year. Bernanke's upbeat assessment helped steady stock markets on Feb. 28 after a plunge the day before that some traders attribute partly to Greenspan's musing that a recession couldn't be ruled out.

``It is possible that we can have a recession at the end of this year,'' said Greenspan, who ran the central bank for 18 years until January 2006. Bernanke, 53, declined to comment.

We see several things in that quote. First, Greenspan is retired and there is no need for him to comment any longer. Second, it comes on the heels of the shaky global markets. With the markets jittery enough, Greenspan knows that such statements can add to the jitters regardless of any substantiation. Third, his successor had come out after the market shakeup and calmed them by declaring his opinion that the economy will have an upturn this year. What would drive Greenspan to come out and contradict that? The timing, the statement and the complete lack of class here makes the Belcher look like a chump.

Finally, reading the story you would come away with the notion that his opinion is solely based on the fact that the current economic expansion has been so long - six years. You know, the low interest, low inflation, low unemployment, increased revenue economy that libs have been bashing has now been in expansion mode so long that the Belcher thinks it likely won't go on longer. He claims in the article that "...he has been careful to avoid making life difficult for his successor." The left leanings of the Greenspan family are known. I guess the thought that the Bush economy may fall in the category of one of the longest expanding economies does not sit well with him. He simply could not resist a potshot and let his successor rot.

The fact is that a 7-10 year expansion for the Bush economy with a foundation of tax cuts is anathema to liberals. Liberals cannot afford for Bush to exit his presidency with any mark of success. They have fought this economy every step of the way and it has gone up in spite of their antics. They fight tooth and nail against the war on terror. They opposed the surge because even though Bush has had shortcomings so far, a good final outcome in Iraq would make them look quite bad. This is why some liberal dems are revolting against their boxed in leadership on Iraq funding. The surge is showing early sign of progress and that simply must be stopped by their thinking.

Shame on Greenspan. His cowardly 30% chance of recession allows him to step in and cause potential damage while not losing any credibility if it does not happen. After all there is a 70% chance it won't happen. The question is what are you hoping for? Are you hoping the economy will continue to expand? Are you hoping the surge will produce good results? Whose side are you on?