George W. Bush has at times been called the "CEO President," in part because he wants to run the government like a business and in part because he seems to run the government in a way that benefits business, even at the expense of consumers. For a CEO President, professors of business and economics are not at all impressed.

MaxSpeak quotes the letter:

The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base.

Some degree of inequality is inherent in any free market economy, creating positive incentives for economic and technological advancement. But when inequality becomes extreme, it can be socially corrosive and economically dysfunctional. Problems of this sort are visible throughout much of the developing world. At the moment, the most commonly accepted measure of inequality – the so-called Gini coefficient – is far higher in the United States than in any other developed country and is continuing to move upward. We don’t know where the breakpoint is for the U.S., but we would rather not find out. With all due respect, we believe your tax policy has exacerbated the problem of inequality in the United States, which has worrisome implications for the economy as a whole.

I've merely quoted a couple of portions that focus on tax polices — there is quite a bit more and the authors don't pull any punches. There are a lot of conservatives who think that George W. Bush has followed a very sound and sensible economic policy, but I wonder what sorts of standards they are using to arrive at such a judgment? A president can't be held responsible for everything that happens, but we can certainly do that for some things.

And, as The LA Times explains, the growing income inequality is part of the problem:

While life has grown ever lusher at the top end of the corporate food chain, it's increasingly precarious for those farther down. As income for top executives shot up, average American workers' salaries have barely kept pace with inflation—and many are finding their jobs, health coverage and retirement prospects in jeopardy. In fact, the boom in executive pay is only one aspect of a deeper and even more disturbing trend: the growing inequality in American society. Today, as economist James K. Galbraith points out, pay is more lopsided than at any time since the Great Depression.

If ordinary workers' annual pay had risen at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990, a report by the Institute for Policy Studies points out, they would be making $75,338 today—instead of the $26,899 they are taking home. Adjusted for inflation, that's only marginally more than what they made in 1980. Executives' salaries aren't to blame for this—bloated as they are, they still generally constitute only a tiny fraction of major companies' revenues—but they are a symptom of the larger trend.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 1997 the richest 1% of American families—those who had an annual income of at least $677,900 in '97—saw their incomes more than double. But for families in the middle, income grew by only 10%. For the lowest 20%, it actually fell. That helps explain why the number of Americans living below the poverty line swelled by more than 1 million last year. Other studies have confirmed the basic conclusion: The rich are not only getting richer, they are getting much richer—while most people are barely holding on to what they've got.

Firms say they need to pay these amounts to attract top talent. But there's often no connection between executive pay and corporate performance. A study released this year by Rutgers University analyzed more than 1,500 U.S. companies over a 10-year period. It found no correlation between higher executive remuneration and bigger gains for shareholders. Worse, many companies have seen their earnings and stock prices fall while their executives' pay keeps rising.

Some people actually think that all of the above are good trends for America to have, not that I've seen any coherent arguments that successfully defend such a position.

Read More:

• 2004 Elections
• Election Polls
• George W. Bush
• John Kerry