are demographically driven, largely dwarfing the policy initiatives of a standing president. Therefore, because the last of the Baby Boomers have just passed their peak spending years, there's now nowhere for the economy to go but down. So, if the economy is like a cruise ship riding on the ocean swells, with the president as captain, then . . . "the former captains, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, deserve no credit for the rises that occurred while they were at the helm. Likewise, George W. Bush should not be blamed for the current downturn. And as for Captain Obama . . . so sorry, Mr. Limbaugh, there's no point in hoping for his failure; the new captain has zero chance of keeping the boat aloft because the demographics are entirely against him." (This quoted passage comes from the 2009 book "The Redesign of Tomorrowland.") It is certainly the case that the US economy has a certain inner mechanism that at various times in our history is driven by this dynamic and diverse society. But to claim that presidential policy has no effect simply belies demonstratable outcomes from identifiable policies. Such a claim seems to be neo-sophistry. It sounds like wanting to withold credit from a certain president for clearly improving the US economy the past 3 years and wanting to hold another president above reproach for tanking the US economy in the previous political term. From the 60 year residual economic dynamo rooted in New Deal policies to the recurring