Greenspan the Partisan Crank

Test ticker

Monika Bauerlein,
CEO

Dear Reader,

December is make-or-break for Mother Jones’ fundraising. We have a $350,000 goal that we simply cannot afford to miss. And in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain, as matter-of-fact as we can, how being a nonprofit means everything to us. Bottom line: Donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year and are urgently needed this month, and all online gifts will be matched and go twice as far until we hit our goal. Please pitch in if you can right now.

December is make-or-break for Mother Jones’ fundraising, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we hope that giving it to you as matter-of-fact as we can will work to raise the $350,000 we need to raise this month. Donations make up 74 percent of our budget this year, and all online gifts will be matched and go twice as far until we hit our goal.

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.

I have strong memories of Alan Greenspan’s bizarro justification in 2001 for insisting that we stop running federal budget surpluses. It was convoluted, it didn’t make sense, and it was pretty obvious partisan hackery. But I confess that either I’ve forgotten, or I never quite realized, just how eccentric it really was. “I’ve seen theories this convoluted and loopy before,” says Jon Chait, after reminding us of Greenspan’s concluding flourish, “But they’ve usually been scrawled in long-hand by random cranks who mail letters to magazines.” No kidding.

UPDATE: Just out curiosity, is there anyone around today who actually defends Greenspan’s position back then? Maybe Larry Kudlow or Donald Luskin? Anyone?