FT167: “When we lived more austerely there was no need for painful austerity to cure a bloated government.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 26th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Wise Men in Governments can Do Anything but Pay for their Nanny States

Economics changed in the early Twentieth Century.  America once again had a central bank.  Progressives were expanding the role of government.  And a new economist entered the scene that the progressives just loved.  For he was a macroeconomist who said government should have an active role in the economy.  A role where government tweaked the economy to make it better.  Stronger.  While avoiding the painful corrections on the downside of a business cycle.  Something laissez-faire capitalism caused.  And could not prevent.  But if wise men in government had the power to tweak the private sector economy they could.  At least this is what the progressives and Keynesian economists thought.

That economist was, of course, John Maynard Keynes.  Who rewrote the book on economics.  And what really excited the progressives was the chapter on spending an economy out of a recession.  Now there were two ways to increase spending in an economy.  You can cut tax rates so consumers have bigger paychecks.  Or the government can spend money that they borrow or print.  The former doesn’t need any government intervention into the private sector economy.  While the latter requires those wise men in government to reach deep into that economy.  Guess which way governments choose to increase spending.  Here’s a hint.  It ain’t the one where they just sit on the sidelines.

Governments changed in the Twentieth Century.  Socialism swept through Europe.  And left social democracies in its wake.  Not quite socialism.  But pretty close.  It was the rise of the nanny state.  Cradle to grave government benefits.  A lot of free stuff.  Including pensions.  Health care.  College educations.  And a lot of government jobs in ever expanding government bureaucracies.  Where wise men in government made everything better for the people living in these nanny states.  And armed with their new Keynesian economic policies there was nothing they couldn’t do.  Except pay for their nanny states.

According to John Maynard Keynes raising Tax Rates reduces New Economic Activity

The problem with a nanny state is things change.  People have fewer babies.  Health care and medicines improve.  Increasing lifespans.  You put this together and you get an aging population.  The death knell of a nanny state.  For when those wise men in government set up all of those generous government benefits they assumed things would continue the way they were.  People would continue to have the same amount of babies.  And we would continue to die just about the time we retired.  Giving us an expanding population of new workers entering the workforce.  While fewer people left the workforce and quickly died.  So the tax base would grow.  And always be larger than those consuming those taxes.  In other words, a Ponzi scheme.

But then change came.  With the Sixties came birth control and abortion.  And we all of a sudden started having fewer babies.  While at the same time advances in medicine was increasing our lifespans.  Which flipped the pyramid upside down.  Fewer people were entering the workforce than were leaving it.  And those leaving it were living a lot longer into retirement.  Consuming record amounts of tax money.  More than the tax base could provide.  Leading to deficit spending.  And growing national debt.

Now remember those two ways to increase spending in the economy?  You either cut tax rates.  Or the government borrows and spends.  So if cutting tax rates will generate new economic activity (i.e., new spending in the economy) what will a tax increase do?  It will decrease spending in the economy.  And reduce new economic activity.  Which caused a problem for these nanny states with aging populations.  As the price tag on their nanny state benefits eventually grew greater than their tax revenue’s ability to pay for it.  So they increased tax rates.  Which reduced economic activity.  And with less economic activity to tax their increase in tax rates actually decreased tax revenue.  Forcing them to run greater deficits.  Which added to their national debts.  Increasing the interest they paid on their debt.  Which left less money to pay for those generous benefits.

President Obama’s Non-Defense Spending caused a Huge Spike in the National Debt not seen since World War II

It’s a vicious cycle.  And eventually you reach a tipping point.  As debts grow larger some start to question the ability of a government to ever repay their debt.  Making it risky to loan them any more money.  Which forces these countries with huge debts to pay higher interest rates on their government bonds.  Which leaves less money to pay for those generous benefits.  While their populations continue to age.  Taking you to that tipping point.  Like many countries in the Eurozone who could no longer borrow money to pay for their nanny states.  Who had to turn to the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund for emergency loans.  Which did provide those emergency loans.  Under the condition that they cut spending.  Money in exchange for austerity.  Something that just galls those Keynesian economists.  For despite all of their financial woes coming from having too much debt they still believe these governments should spend their way out of their recessions.  And never mind about the deficits.  Or their burgeoning debts.

But these Keynesians are missing a very important and obvious point.  The problem these nations have is due to their inability to borrow money.  Which means they would NOT have a problem if they didn’t need to borrow money.  So austerity will work.  Because it will decrease the amount of money they need to borrow.  Allowing their tax revenue to pay for their spending needs.  Without excessive tax rates that reduce economic activity.  Making the nanny state the source of all their problems.  For had these nations never became social democracies in the first place they never would have had crushing debt levels that cause sovereign debt crises.  But they did.  And their populations aged.  Making it a matter of time before their Ponzi schemes failed.  Something no nation with a growing nanny state and an aging population can avoid.  Even the United States.  Who kept true to their limited government roots for about 100 years.   Then came the progressives.  The central bank.  And Keynesian economics.  Putting the Americans on the same path as the Europeans (see US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP).

Debt as Percent of GDP and Wars R2

With the end of the Revolutionary War they diligently paid down their war debt.  Which was pretty much the entire federal debt then.  As the federal government was as limited as it could get.  Then came the War of 1812 and the debt grew.  After the war it fell to virtually nothing.  Then it soared to pay for the Civil War.  Which changed the country.  The country was bigger.  Connected by a transcontinental railroad.  And other internal improvements.  Which prevented the debt from falling back down to pre-war levels.  Then it shot up to pay for World War I.  After WWI the Roaring Twenties replaced progressivism and quickly brought the debt down again.  Then Herbert Hoover brought back progressivism and killed the Roaring Twenties.  FDR turned a bad recession into the Great Depression.  By following all of that Keynesian advice to spend the nation out of recession.  From the man himself.  Keynes.  The massive deficit spending of the New Deal raised the debt higher than it was during World War I.  Changing the country again.  Introducing a state pension.  Social Security.  A Ponzi scheme that would struggle once the population started aging.

Then came World War II and the federal debt soared to its highest levels.  After the war a long decline in the debt followed.  At the end of that decline was the Vietnam War.  And LBJ’s Great Society.  Which arrested the fall in the debt.  Its lowest point since the Great Depression.  Which was about as large as the debt during the Civil War and World War I.  Showing the growth in non-defense spending.  Then came Reagan’s surge in defense spending to win the Cold War.  Once the Americans won the Cold War the debt began to fall again.  Until the Islamist terrorist attacks on 9/11.  Halting the fall in the debt as the War on Terror replaced the Cold War.  Then came the Great Recession.  And President Obama.  Whose non-defense spending caused a huge spike in the national debt.  Taking it to a level not seen since World War II.  When an entire world was at war.  But this debt is not from defense spending.  It’s from an expanded nanny state.  As President Obama takes America into the direction of European socialism.  And unsustainable spending.  Which can end in only but one way.  Austerity.  Painful austerity.  Not like the discomfort of the sequester cuts that only were cuts in the rate of future growth.  But real cuts.  Like in Greece.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK, Tax Cuts, Vietnam, LBJ, Great Society, Hippies, Race Riots, Keynesian Spending, Nixon, Carter and Ronald Reagan

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 21st, 2012

History 101

Ronald Reagan would follow the Kennedy Example of Cutting Taxes to Grow the Economy

In 1961 West German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard gave John F. Kennedy (JFK) some good advice.  During JFK’s visit he told him not to make the same mistake the British had.  He told Kennedy NOT to follow their policy of high taxation.  Because it killed economic activity.  And economic growth.  England was suffering from her bad tax policy.  He urged the American president not to make the same mistake.

JFK heeded Erhard’s advice.  And cut tax rates.  This did not please liberals in his Democrat Party.  Who were all Keynesians.  And believed in large government interventions into the private sector.  Funded by large government expenditures.  Which in the Keynesian world you got in one of three ways.  Tax, borrow or print money.  You did not cut tax rates.  Which was blasphemous in Keynesian doctrine.  You never, ever, cut tax rates.  But Kennedy did.  Arguing that “an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget—just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.”

A message Ronald Reagan would give time and again some 20 years later.  And would follow the Kennedy example of cutting taxes to grow the economy.  Generating more tax revenue without having to cut spending.  The result of JFK’s ‘trickle-down’ economics were impressive.  He cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%.  And cut the 20% rate to 14% at the other end of the scale.  What did people do with these tax savings?  They saved.  And invested.  Savings rose from an annual growth rate of 2% to 9%.  Business investment from 2% to 8%.  New jobs grew at a rate of 100%.  And unemployment fell by one third.  With GDP rising some 40% in two years.  And despite cutting tax rates tax revenue rose.  The booming economy generating more tax revenue even at the lower rates.  Even more than the Keynesians said Kennedy was going to cost the government with his tax cuts.

The Social Upheavals of the Sixties, the Race Riots and his Unpopular Vietnam War all took their Toll on LBJ

Liberals love JFK.  But for none of these reasons.  They prefer to wax poetically about his fight to end economic and racial injustice.  Which were in reality low on his priority list.  Addressing civil rights only after trouble was escalating in the south.  But that’s the Left’s cherished memory of him.  And of Camelot.  The American royal family.  They don’t talk about JFK’s trickle-down economics.  His Bay of Pigs fiasco (the plan to oust Fidel Castro from Cuba that he withdrew support from after it met difficulty on the beaches).  His Cuban missile crisis (near nuclear war with the Soviet Union) which his indecision at the Bay of Pigs may have invited.   Or his war in Vietnam.  No.  They stay silent on the best part of his presidency.  As well as the worst parts.  And focus instead on the fairy tale that was Camelot.  Ignoring completely his excellent economic policies and the strong economy they gave us.  And all that tax revenue that poured into the treasury.  Yes, they may have liked having that money.  But they didn’t have to like how it got there.

Following JFK’s assassination Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) ascended to the presidency.  An old school politician that knew how to make deals to advance legislation.  And boy did he.  He declared unconditional war on poverty.  And unleashed the Great Society to spend America out of poverty.  Keynesian to the core.  Pure demand-side economics.  Give poor people money which they will use to buy consumer goods.  That Keynesian consumption that was so crucial to a healthy economy.  So Johnson made good use of all that tax revenue JFK created with his tax cuts.  And LBJ’s Great Society consumed enormous amounts of that tax revenue.  As did JFK’s Vietnam War.  Now LBJ’s war.  Which LBJ escalated.  Government expenditures exploded during the Johnson administration.  And the spending obligations he put into place were only going to escalate future expenditures.  Oh, and we were also trying to land a man on the moon during this time.  All during a time when the world was changing.  When a bunch of filthy hippies began to protest anything that didn’t somehow gratify them (their rallying cry was sex, drugs and rock & roll).  And racial tensions simmered to the boiling point in our crowded cities.

The social upheavals of the Sixties.  The race riots.  The unpopular war on our living room televisions.  They all took their toll on LBJ.  The race riots especially hurt him as he had spent so much money on ending economic and racial injustice.  On a televised address he told the nation that he was through being the president.  He wasn’t going to run for another term.  And he wouldn’t accept a nomination for a second term.  He basically thanked an ungrateful nation.  And planned for his retirement.  Leaving a fiscal mess for the next president.  As well as a mess in Vietnam.  And the job for cleaning up these messes fell to Richard Milhous Nixon.

When Nixon entered the Presidency all those Spending Obligations of the Great Society were Coming Due

Nixon had a lot of liberal tendencies.  He was actually a member of the NAACP since 1950.  Long before JFK or LBJ talked of civil rights.  He believed in New Deal economics.  Of the good government could do.  He was also an environmentalist.  Giving us the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  And giving us emissions standards for our cars.  He gave us the Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA).  And a flurry of other regulations.  Not what you would expect from a Republican these days.  Of course, few probably know this.  But they probably do know about Watergate.  At least the word ‘Watergate’.  Which was pretty tame by today’s standards.  Spying on the political opposition.  Then lying about it.

When Nixon entered the presidency all those spending obligations of the Great Society were coming due.  The cost of LBJ’s Great Society really hit the Nixon administration hard.  Enormous amounts of money were flowing out to poor people (so they could spend it and buy consumer goods).  To the war in Vietnam.  To the Cold War.  To the space program.  To the enlarged federal government.  Government spending was going off the chart.  But it wasn’t having the affect on the economy the Keynesians said it would.  They were taxing, borrowing and printing money like good little Keynesians.  But they were devaluing the dollar in the process.  And igniting inflation.  Worse, the U.S. dollar was the reserve currency of the world.  Foreign nations pegged their currency to the U.S. dollar.  The U.S. pegged the dollar to gold.  As the Americans devalued the dollar, though, the foreign countries traded their dollars for gold.  Gold began to fly out of the country.  So Nixon did what any responsible Keynesian would do.  Instead of playing by the rules of the game he changed the rules.  And decoupled the dollar from gold.  The Nixon Shock.  Ushering in the era of unfettered Keynesian economics.  Deficit spending.  Growing debt.  High inflation.  High unemployment.  Stagflation.  And malaise.

Jimmy Carter would see the worse of LBJ’s Great Society.  As it left his economy in a mess.  Despite all of that government spending.  And Carter suffered because he, too, was a Keynesian.  He believed in that GDP formula where GDP equaled the sum of consumption, investment, government expenditures and net exports (exports – Imports).  And the formula clearly states that the way to increase GDP (and increase the number of jobs) was to increase government spending to give money to people so they could buy consumer goods (increasing government spending and consumption in the formula).  It was simple arithmetic.  But the formula left out about half of all economic activity.  The intermediate business spending that takes place before any consumer goods enter our stores.  Think of things consumers don’t buy.  Like railroad track, blast furnaces, construction front-end loaders, etc.  Economic activity that JFK encouraged with his tax cuts.  As Ronald Reagan did so, too, some 20 years later.  Which is why the JFK and the Reagan economies were far better than any Keynesian administration.

Even after more than a decade of unfettered Keynesian spending consumption was only 34% of all economic activity in 1982.  Even though official GDP figures reported it at 65%.  Why the discrepancy?  Intermediate business spending.  The stages of production before consumer goods.  Coming in at 54% of real economic activity in 1982.  Which is why the tax-cut policies of JFK and Ronald Reagan worked.  And the spending policies of JBJ, Nixon and Carter didn’t.  Trickle-down works.  Because it creates jobs.  And those lower tax rates generate higher tax revenues because more people are working and paying taxes.  All things a Keynesian wants.  But they will reject them because they resulted from the ‘wrong’ policies.  Because Keynesians want to tax, borrow and print.  Regardless of their effect on the economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Keynesian Economics and Job Creation just don’t go Together

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 12th, 2011

It’s Competition between Intel and AMD pushing Chip Technology to New Heights, not Government Investment

With Solyndra going belly up after that half billion dollar government investment people have been asking questions.  One of which is how government should invest into the private economy.  Well, here’s one example (see AMD’s Bulldozer Fails To Meet Expectations by Devin Coldewey posted 10/12/2011 on TechCrunch).

The Intel-AMD war has been going on a long time, and I hope it will be going on longer. The last few years have been hard on the underdog, however, with huge growth by Intel in both the low-power and high-performance sectors. The Core 2 Duos excelled, as did the Core i* series, and its most recent consumer series, the Sandy Bridge update to the i*s, is a monster. AMD has consistently lagged behind, though from the other side of the table you might say they’ve been nipping at Intel’s heels quite effectively for years…

Unfortunately, despite the new architecture and insane transistor count (the 8-core 8150 has around 2 billion), performance and efficiency per core just plain isn’t that good. There are a few tests on which Bulldozer takes on Sandy Bridge well, such as those truly optimized for high core counts, but on single-core tasks it gets destroyed.

In other words, government shouldn’t invest in the private economy.  Because, when they don’t, the private economy does very well.

Does any of that techno-speak make sense to you?  If you’re not in the hi-tech industry, or a kid, the answer is probably ‘no’.  But the beautiful thing is that we can enjoy the end product of putting 2 billion transistors on a chip.  That we can understand.  And that it is competition between Intel and AMD pushing chip technology to incredible new heights.  Not government investments.

Obama wants to Raise Taxes on Small Business Owners, the Number One Job Creators in the Country

The most successful companies out there making the things we all want and must have need help from government.  The kind of help only government can give.  That thing only government can do.  Cut tax rates (see Business groups push for business-friendly tax reform by Bernie Becker posted 10/12/2011 on The Hill).

The National Federation of Independent Business, the Independent Community Bankers of America and more than 40 other groups are calling on key policymakers to tackle both the individual and the corporate tax codes together and to end double taxation on corporations.

“By embracing these broad concepts, Congress can move the taxation of business income in a direction that helps ensure that all employers, regardless of how they are organized, continue to invest and create jobs here in America,” the groups wrote to the top Democrat and Republican on both the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means panels.

The Left keep saying businesses don’t object to high taxes and costly regulations.  The Keynesian economists like to cite poll after poll that business owners’ only concern is the lack of demand.  And then interpreting that as meaning that they want government to invest and stimulate the private economy.  But these businesses are saying otherwise.  They’re saying it is the high taxes.

The Obama administration also has, so far at least, spent more time pushing for corporate tax reform, while Republicans like Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, want a more comprehensive approach.

Camp has taken that stance in large part because many small businesses, called pass-through entities, pay their taxes through the individual code and would be left behind in any corporate-only reform.

And it’s worse than that.  Obama wants to raise taxes on these ‘pass-through’ entities.  To make them pay their ‘fair share’.  Those so called rich people earning $250,000 or more.  These small business owners whose business incomes ‘pass through’ to their private tax returns.  These same people that have risked everything they own to create a business.  And create jobs.  Who are, in fact, the number one job creators in the country.  But many fail.  And lose everything.  These are the rich people that Obama wants to raise the tax rates on.

Public School Education is Bad because Dumbing Down of our Kids is Necessary to Fool our Young Voters

Which calls into question the bedrock of all their policy.  Tax and spend Keynesian economics (see SCHOLAR COMMENTARY by Matthew Mitchell posted 10/10/2011 on Mercatus Center).

Sargent and Sims’s work is particularly relevant today as it explains the way that peoples’ expectations of the future can impact their current behavior. This is reflected in every economics story today that uses the phrase “policy uncertainty.”

Their work came along at a time when Keynesian economic models were facing challenges: There were theoretical challenges by economists like Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas, both of whom have previously won Nobel Prizes, but there were also empirical challenges. Keynesian economics didn’t seem to make much sense of the 1970s when the economy experienced high unemployment and high inflation, whereas it had worked pretty well in explaining macroeconomic trends in the 1960s.

The problem with the faux science Keynesian economics (a social science not a real science) is that it tries to quantify human behavior.  Which is something many people believe we can’t do.  Those in the Austrian school of economics.  Ronald ReaganMargaret Thatcher.  And most economists not wedded to their governments.

The 1970s were the heyday of Keynesian economics.  Even Republican Richard Nixon adopted Keynesian policy and declared he was a Keynesian, too.  Then Jimmy Carter continued many of these same policies.  And how did that work?  You can ask Jimmy Carter.  Who lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide.  By asking a simple question during a presidential debate.  Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Part of these failures had to do with the fact that these earlier Keynesian models relied on people’s naiveté. They worked so long as people could be fooled by government. For example, government-induced inflation might boost the economy if enough producers are fooled into thinking that higher prices are the result of increased demand for their products. Sargent’s work explains how people’s beliefs about the future impact their behavior. He found that if you make modest assumptions about peoples’ ability to understand how policy will affect their future, Keynesian policy prescriptions like short-term fiscal or monetary stimulus don’t work very well.

And there’s your answer to why the quality of our public school education is lagging other countries.  It’s not the money.  It’s the curriculum.  And the dumbing down of our kids.  So government can fool them.  To make them believe bad economic policies are good.  So these young voters keep voting for them.  Which is important to them.  Because once people wise up, they lose their votes.

As Long as there is a Democrat Politician Somewhere there will be a Vote to Buy

The best government policy for investing in the private sector is no policy.  Successful companies don’t need help.  They just need to be left alone.  So they can do what they do best.  Create great things.  And jobs.

Higher taxes do not create jobs.  They destroys jobs.  At least according to those who create jobs.

And the tax and spend Keynesian myth of active government participation has been debunked once again.  By real economists.  This time by the Nobel in Economics winners.  Sargent and Sims.  Thus proving once again that you can’t quantify human behavior.  And that people consider more than the interest rate before spending their money.

So you’d think this would put an end to any further stimulus spending.  But no.  Because stimulus spending isn’t about stimulus.  It’s about getting votes.  And as long as there is a Democrat politician somewhere there will be a vote to buy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama uses a Joint Session of Congress for a 2012 Campaign Speech on Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 9th, 2011

The Obama Jobs Speech was the Same Old Same Old with the Angry turned up to Eleven

The big speech was last night.  President Obama‘s Jobs speech.  After waiting with bated breath.  For him to come back from vacation.  On Martha’s Vineyard.  Where no one wants for a job.  Or anything.

What you thought of it depends on your party affiliation.  If you’re a Big Government liberal Democrat that wants to stick it to the rich, I’m sure you liked it.  If you were looking for substance, I’m sure you were disappointed.  It was just the same old same old.  With the angry turned up to eleven.

Here are some selections from the transcript with commentary (see Obama jobs speech transcript: Full text (as delivered) posted 9/8/2011 on Politico).

These men and women grew up with faith in an America where hard work and responsibility paid off. They believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share — where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits; maybe a raise once in a while. If you did the right thing, you could make it. Anybody could make it in America.

For decades now, Americans have watched that compact erode. They have seen the decks too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington has not always put their interests first.

Yeah, it used to be like that.  Until greed set in.  Government greed.  Their insatiable want of private sector wealth.  And power over our lives.  High taxes.  And punishing regulations.  These have hurt American businesses that once provided those fair shakes.  It’s President Obama and his party that have been making this a business unfriendly nation.  Giving American businesses an unpleasant choice who struggle to compete.  Either close.  Or conduct business in a country that lets them compete.

Just look at the effect of Obamacare.  All hiring is frozen.  And those who can get Obamacare waivers are.  The communist Chinese don’t have these problems.

The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.

He says as he scolds the American people.  And our Republican representatives.  Yelling at us.  Scowling at us.  Fed up with us.  Because he is not getting his way.

Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers.

Absolutely right.  And the best thing Washington can to is to stop helping.  Their tax and regulatory policies are smothering economic growth.  You want to help?  Then get out of the way.  And let business do what business does best.  Grow.  And create jobs.  To meet demand.  That the market is demanding.  Not building what the government thinks is best.

I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for.

That urgent is it?  Urgent.  But not so urgent to cancel your luxurious vacation on the exclusive Martha’s Vineyard?  Where the rich and famous vacation to get away from people like us.  You know, if it could wait until after Martha’s Vineyard, it can’t be that important.

Democrats and Republicans support everything in this plan?  If so why isn’t this already law?  If not important before, why is it now?  Some two and a half years into your presidency?  And some two and a half years after applying your laser-like focus on job creation?

It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for long-term unemployed.

Jobs for teachers?  There’s nothing stimulative about that.  They don’t hire workers.  And the kids they teach aren’t going to hire any workers for a very long time.  This is just more money for teachers’ unions.  Which will be funneled back to the Democrat Party via union dues.

We pay teachers with tax dollars.  Paid by the taxpayers.  This is money the government transfers from the private sector economy to the public sector teachers.  So before teachers can stimulate with this money the private sector has to lose it first.  They take a large sum of money from the private sector.  And give it to the teachers.  Less administration costs to make this all happen.  To stimulate the private sector economy.  Which means the teachers spend less money than the private sector would have if they were able to keep their money.  This is a net loss of economic activity.  And is not stimulative.

Teachers are like government.  They provide an important service.  But they are taxpayer financed.  And like anything taxpayer financed, they are a drag on the economy.

More shovel-ready construction projects?  You told us yourself there is no such thing as a shovel-ready project.  This won’t be stimulative either.  Construction projects just don’t happen overnight.  Even if you get rid of all the regulatory red tape.  Projects take months to engineer.  If you cut that short there will be cost overruns to correct all the things missed in the engineering process.  Then there’s the asbestos abatement study.  Lead abatement.  Environmental impact studies.  At best these will start hiring in time for the 2012 election campaign.  Which no doubt is the goal.

It will provide — it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. (Applause.) It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and if they hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away. (Applause.)

If tax breaks are good for businesses then just cut tax rates.  A tax rate cut is more stimulative than a onetime tax credit.  A tax credit does not instill business confidence.  Because hiring a new employee is far more costly than any onetime tax credit.  Especially with Obamacare bearing down on small businesses.  It’s these permanent costs of current tax and regulatory policies.  These are what are keeping business skittish about expanding and hiring.  And a onetime tax credit won’t change that.  A repeal of Obamacare would probably spark some business growth.  But not a targeted tax credit.

Pass this jobs bill — pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or if they raise workers’ wages.

Wishful thinking.  Whoever came up with this is an economic simpleton.  He might as well have asked everyone to voluntary pay more for their groceries.  So the stores will hire more people with all that additional profit.  Employees are another cost of doing business.  Voluntarily increasing these costs above the market cost will only make these businesses less competitive in the market place.  Threatening their business.  And all the jobs they currently provide.

It’s not just Democrats who have supported this kind of proposal. Fifty House Republicans have proposed the same payroll tax cut that’s in this plan. You should pass it right away. (Applause.)

Yes, payroll tax cuts are good.  They reduce the cost of doing business.  And let employees keep more of their earnings.  So cutting Social Security and Medicare taxes will help.  But this will only set up higher taxes down the road.  Because these programs are going broke.  Businesses understand this.  They know it will only be temporary.  And illusionary.  For they will pay more in the future.  So they aren’t going to hire more now.

Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America? (Applause.)

No.  It didn’t.  We took over the title of economic superpower from the British before the federal highway bill.  And private industry built the railroads.  And robber barons.  Sure, government helped.  But it didn’t lead the way.

China?  Really?  Why is China building so much infrastructure?  Because they have cheap labor.  They couldn’t do what they’re doing if their labor costs were the same as ours.  And that high-speed rail system?  They’re now questioning quality and safety.

And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating.

According to my calendar it’s September.  And I’m pretty sure it’s September throughout the country.  Which means what?  That’s right.  The kids just went back to school.  Which means the next round of school renovation projects will take place starting next June.  When the kids get out of school.  Not very stimulative if you ask me.  Unless you just want a lot of people working on these school renovations during the 2012 election campaign.

And to make sure the money is properly spent, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles.

Just like you promised your $800 billion stimulus wouldn’t contain any pork or earmarks?  When it was mostly pork and earmarks?  Fool us once shame on you.  Fool us twice shame on us.

And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it will do for the economy. (Applause.)

Great.  Nothing guarantees to speed things up like making it go through a new government bureaucracy.  Which can better send money to friends of the administration.  Just like that $800 billion stimulus.

Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job.

Let’s crunch some numbers.  Say you hire someone.  Pay them $30,000.  Your half of Social Security and Medicare taxes come to $2,295 for the year.  Now factor in your other costs.  State and federal unemployment insurance.  Workers’ compensation insurance.  Health care.  Etc.  Not to mention their salary.  It adds up to a lot of money.  Far more than that $4,000 tax credit.  For hiring someone they don’t need to support their current level of business.  And you know what?  A smart business owner isn’t going to do this.

The plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year. (Applause.) If the millions of unemployed Americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy.

The government has to take that money out of the private sector economy first.  Before it can pay unemployment benefits.  Someone is still spending that money.  Just a different someone.  By the time you add in the cost of administering those benefits, there is a net loss in economic activity. 

Unemployment benefits help the unemployed while they look for another job.  They don’t stimulate the economy.

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run. (Applause.)

Standard and Poor’s wanted to see $4 trillion in real spending cuts.  Not cuts in the out-years that will disappear in the next budget deal.  Real cuts.  If not they said they would downgrade the U.S. sovereign debt rating.  They couldn’t do it.  The best they could do was a $1 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years.  And by golly if S&P didn’t downgrade our credit rating.

And the special commission is to find another half trillion in spending cuts?  On top of the $1.5 trillion they were already looking for?  That Congress was unable to find?  And now they have to find $2 trillion?  Yeah, like that’s going to happen.  That’s a plan with but one goal.  Failure. 

With this kind of spending, a deficit reduction plan can only mean one thing.  More taxes.  Just what the economy needs.  Not.

While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix. (Laughter.) We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake and where everybody pays their fair share.

An executive secretary probably earns something north of $60,000 a year.  That puts her in a top marginal tax bracket of 25%.  Crunching the numbers and this executive secretary will pay $11,125 in federal taxes.  Now let’s assume Warren Buffet has a half billion dollars in investments that pay a return of 8%.  That’s a capital gain of about $40 million.  Taxed at a paltry 15% capital gains tax that’s a measly $6 million in federal taxes.  Funny.  His secretary has a higher tax rate.  But Buffet pays approximately 53,833% more in tax dollars.  I don’t know how you can say one person paying $40 million in taxes isn’t paying his fair share.

Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? (Applause.) Right now, we can’t afford to do both.

This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. (Laughter.)

This is nothing but political grandstanding and class warfare.  And rather Orwellian.  In Nineteen Eighty Four, they just changed the meaning of words to control the people.  Such as slavery is freedom.  But changing the meaning of words doesn’t change what slavery is.  It’s still slavery.  No matter what you call it.  And political grandstanding and class warfare is political grandstanding and class warfare.  Even if you say it isn’t.

Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea -– while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition.

America can’t compete with China because Chinese labor is cheaper.  So to make American products more competitive the president wants to subsidize our high cost of labor.  With American tax dollars.  Spread the higher cost of U.S. goods throughout the American economy.  Leaving everyone with less money for their own personal needs.  So we can keep Big Union working.  And supporting the Democrat Party.  Which will only increase government spending.  Our deficit.  And our debt.

To subsidize Big Labor they’ll have to pill that money out of the private sector economy first.  So you subtract X from the private sector economy.  And give X to Big Union.  Less an administration fee, of course.  Meaning that there will be a net loss of economic activity.

If we provide the right incentives, the right support — and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules — we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that we sell all around the world.

The free market doesn’t need government incentives and support.  They did fine and dandy in the old days without any government help.  And making our trading partners play by the rules?  If you could do that they would be playing by the rules already.  There’s nothing you can do to make China stop undervaluing the yuan.  Unless you want to throw up protective tariffs on Chinese goods.  Of course they’ll retaliate.  Which will only make everything more expensive for the American consumer.  Besides, we already tried this.  Just before the Great Depression.

You really want to talk about the government picking winners and losers (i.e., incentives and support)?  Really?  After the Solyndra bankruptcy?  And the FBI raid on their executive homes?

Well, I agree that we can’t afford wasteful spending, and I’ll work with you, with Congress, to root it out. And I agree that there are some rules and regulations that do put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. (Applause.) That’s why I ordered a review of all government regulations.

Didn’t Al Gore already reinvent government?  To root out wasteful spending and regulations?  Yeah, he did.  Or tried.  Turns out that’s a lot easier said than done.  Especially when you don’t really mean it.  I mean, come on, the Left lives and dies for these costly regulations.  They’re not just going to sit idly by and let them get repealed.  Not when they fund Democrat candidates in elections.

But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.

Really?  So you’re not going to let anyone do what you did?  Like Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  When you used the worst recession since the Great Depression to pass your stimulus?

Basic protections are one thing.  But your regulatory zeal has shut down this economy.  Just ask the Gulf oil workers.  If you can find any.  Because they aren’t working on rigs in the Gulf anymore.  Thanks to you.

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future — a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad — (applause) — launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

The seeds of the first transcontinental railroad were sowed back in the 1830s.  Lincoln became president in 1861.  The NAS was established by an Act of Congress.  Land grant colleges came into being in with the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890.  First introduced in 1857.  Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.  But he did not create these other acts of Congress.  Congress did. 

And the transcontinental railroad?  That was Congress, too.  And one of the most corrupt Congresses in history.  The incentives and support Congress gave encouraged them to build track on ice.  Zigzag to cover as much land as possible to claim the mineral rights beneath. And when east and west finally met, they kept building track.  Parallel to each other.  To keep collecting money for track mileage laid.  And the cost overruns made a lot of Congressmen wealthy.  No, this railroad was not America’s finest hour.

How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip?

The government Internet (DARPA) was nothing more than file sharing and email for scientists.  If private enterprise and entrepreneurs didn’t step in that’s what the Internet would still be. 

The computer chip?  Funny. I thought that was Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor.  Which was ultimately based on the transistor.  Invented in 1947 by John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley of Bell Labs.  Who replaced vacuum tubes with semiconductors everywhere.  Except in high-end audio amplifiers.

What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? (Applause.) How many Americans would have suffered as a result?

Actually they’d probably be a lot better off.  As far as a return on investment, Social Security is one of the worst retirement investments out there.  Why?  Because it’s not an investment.  Your money goes into the Social Security trust fund.  Where it ‘waits’ for your retirement.  But before you do, the government takes that money and spends it.  Leaving an IOU in the trust fund.  This is no IRA.  No 401(k).  No mutual fund.  It’s not even a savings bond.  In fact, if you die before you collect, all that money you paid in is kept by the government.  It doesn’t go to your heirs with the rest of your estate.  Like an IRA, a 401(k) or a mutual fund would.

But Social Security has been a real success.  For the government.  Because it has made generations of people dependent on government in their retirement.  Who live in fear of losing their benefits.  And will do anything to keep those benefits coming.  Even if it means screwing their own children.  And their grandchildren.  They’re so frightened by the Democrats that they will vote Democrat.  No matter how much the Democrats steal from future generations.

I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It should not be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose.

That’s right.  You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  And they will milk this for all it’s worth.  Stimulus.  Bailing out the UAW pension funds (i.e., the auto bailout).  Financial reform.  Obamacare.  Everything they’ve always wanted.  But could never get through the normal legislative process.

The Problem with Barack Obama is that he’s a Keynesian who wants to Grow the Government

Once again the professor scolds those who don’t agree with him.  And offers more of the same.  Which has already failed to reverse the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And it’s not going to work this time.  How do we know this?  Because if this stuff worked it would have worked the first time.

And it would be nice to see the plan before our representatives pass the plan.  For as CBO said before, you just can’t score a speech.  We need to see the numbers.  And the leaps of faith.  But I guess it’s hard to quantify soaring rhetoric.  Especially when you’re offering the same thing.  That you’re trying to make sound different this time.

The problem with Barack Obama is that he’s a Keynesian.  With one slight difference.  Keynesian stimulus is supposed to be temporary.  Whereas Obama’s stimulus gets added into the baseline budget.  Making his stimulus spending permanent.  His number one goal isn’t growing the economy.  It’s growing the government.  That’s why his polices don’t help the economy.  But they sure have grown the government.  And in Obama’s book that’s mission accomplished. 

But he sure would like a second term to continue the fun.  But I just don’t see that happening.  For I can’t see how he can fool that many people into believing that they’re better off after four years of his policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #55: “Liberals are all for trickle-down economics as long as the wealth trickles down from those who support liberals.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2011

 JFK Governed as a Conservative

We’ve had two ‘trickle-down’ administrations in recent times.  Both JFK and Ronald Reagan were proponents of supply-side economics.  Between these two administrations we had a few Keynesians (LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter).  JFK and Reagan cut tax rates.  The Keynesians never lowered the tax rate lower than JFK’s.  Reagan did.  But not the Keynesians.

JFK was a Democrat.  But he governed as a conservative.  He was strong on defense.  Even got us into Vietnam to prevent the dominoes from falling in Southeast Asia.  And he was business friendly.  But that doesn’t stop Democrats from loving him, though.  Most probably don’t know anything about his conservative side.  They think about Camelot.  Jackie.  John John.  “Ich bin ein Berliner” (the big Cold War speech after the Soviet Union built the Berlin Wall).  Landing a man on the moon and returning him safely.  “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”  And the civil rights stuff.  Not that he was a hawk when it came to war (Bay of Pigs-sort of, Cuban Missiles Crisis and Vietnam).  And a tax cutter.

LBJ may have been JFK’s vice president but he was no JFK.  Kennedy wanted to build a strong economy and he believed that started with making a business-friendly environment.  Which he did.  Johnson, on the other hand, was a big, old school, liberal.  To him businesses were just cash piñatas for the government to whack.  He wanted their money.  Because he wanted to spend it.  And boy did he.  He exploded the role of government in our lives.  Increased taxes.  Increased regulation.  And increased the government bureaucracy.  He called it his Great Society.  And he gave FDR‘s New Deal a run for its money.

JFK’s Tax Cuts Stimulated Economic Activity

When Kennedy became president, there was a bit of a recession going on.  Unemployment got as high as 6.7% in his first year.  And the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  When he looked at the two the answer was obvious to him.  With a top marginal tax rate of 91%, there was little incentive to invest.  If your earnings exceed a certain amount, you only kept 9 cents of each additional dollar?  So why bother?  Like Billy Joel said, “You can pay Uncle Sam with the overtime.  Is that all you get for your money?”  Or like George Harrison said, “There’s one for you, nineteen for me.  Cause I’m the taxman.”   

No one likes paying taxes.  Especially confiscatory taxes.  It’s why the Beatles left the UK.  All you need may be love.  But even hippies want to keep their money.  And JFK understood this.  High taxes discouraged investment.  And drove some business away.  So he put together an economic plan that included cuts in the tax rates.  He brought the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.  And how did that work?  Not too bad.  Based on the numbers.

In the four years following his tax cuts, tax receipts increased 41%.  So he brought more money into Washington by cutting tax rates.  And it gets better.  The unemployment rate went down 33% (from 5.7% to 3.8%).  And GDP increased 35%.  In the technical language of economists, these numbers are awesome.

The LBJ/Nixon Policies End the JFK Economic Expansion

Well, the party wasn’t going to last.  Thanks to Lee Harvey Oswald.  JFK was dead.  Assassinated.  And LBJ took the oath of office in Air Force One before leaving Texas.  Who can forget the image of a grief-stricken Jackie as Johnson took the oath?  Much like with the assassination of Lincoln, the consequences of that action was to forever change the country (we all wonder how Reconstruction would have gone with Lincoln).  JFK was gone.  LBJ was in.  And he was bringing his Great Society with him.  And the size of government would never be the same.

Johnson raised taxes in his last 2 years to pay for the massive federal spending.  Nixon cut them.  He brought the top marginal rate back to the Kennedy level.  But he didn’t cut spending.  And to keep up with the spending he started printing money.  Gold started flying out of the country so he decoupled the dollar from gold, igniting inflation.  The heady days of the JFK economic expansion were over.  Looking at a period that included the last 2 years of LBJ’s term and Nixon’s 6 years, it’s not a pretty picture.

Tax receipts soared 77% to pay for all that government spending.  And, not surprisingly, the unemployment rate soared, too.  It went from 3.8% to 5.6% (an increase of 47%).  GDP shot up an impressive 80%, too.  Landing on the moon, Vietnam and the Great Society created a lot of economic activity.  But that economic activity wasn’t real.  It was a bubble.  Paid for with high taxes and printed dollars.  So prices were high thanks to inflation.  And a lot of us didn’t have a job.  And this is what Carter got when he entered office.  Malaise.  Stagflation (high unemployment and high inflation).  And something we called the misery index (the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates).  Carter was not going into the 1980 election with a lot going for him.  And the Iranian Hostage Crisis didn’t help any either.

Ronald Reagan Cuts Taxes, Stimulates the Economy and Wins the Cold War

Then came Ronald Reagan.  He put Carter out of his misery by winning the 1980 election.  Then rolled up his sleeves.  And got to work.  When he came into office the top marginal tax rate was 69%.  By the time he left it was 28%.  The Left called him reckless and irresponsible.  That he ran high deficits.  And exploded the federal debt.  Well, yes, both of these did increase during the Reagan years.  But it’s not because of the tax rate cuts.  Those were caused by spending more money than the treasury collected.  And, believe you me, the treasury really raked it in during the Reagan presidency.

In 1981, tax receipts were about $600 billion.  In 1990 (adding in the first year of George H.W. Bush), tax receipts were about $1 trillion.  In other words, the Reagan tax rate cuts increased tax receipts by 72%.  The treasury collected more tax dollars at the lower tax rates.  So there is no way no how you can blame deficits and debt on the Reagan tax rate cuts.  And it gets better.

During the Eighties, the unemployment rate fell 26%.  And the GDP rose 86%.  Lower tax rates.  Higher tax revenue.  Lower unemployment.  And a surge in economic activity.  Wow.  Can it get any better?  Why, yes.  Reagan spent the Soviet Union into defeat in the Cold War.  They just couldn’t keep up.  Caused a lot of trouble on the other side of the Iron Curtain.  Long story short, after his presidency, Eastern Europe would be free of Communism.  And the Berlin Wall would be no more. 

Supply-Side Economics Works

The moral of this lesson?  Supply-side (aka, trickle-down) economics works.  It worked for JFK.  And it worked for Reagan.  What doesn’t work is the Keynesian economics of LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter.  They grew government.  Increased government spending.  Giving us higher taxes, higher unemployment, higher inflation and malaise.  The only thing that trickled down was their misery.

So if trickle-down can fill the federal coffers why do liberals hate it?  Because those who support supply-side economics are typically in the private sector.  Have jobs.  Don’t belong to a union.  And don’t need any help from government.  You put that all together and the answer is clear.  These people don’t lobby liberals.  So what good is their wealth when no part of it makes its way to liberal pockets?  Like Big Labor?  Or public sector unions?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #55: “Liberals are all for trickle-down economics as long as the wealth trickles down from those who support liberals.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2011

 Under Carter it was ‘in Government we Trust’

Mention Ronald Reagan in a room full of liberals and no doubt you’ll hear some derisive comment about trickle-down economics.  You see, liberals don’t like Reagan.  They liked Jimmy Carter.  But hated Ronald Reagan.  Because Reagan dared to say the king was wearing no clothes.  Metaphorically, of course.  But not Carter.  He clung onto the illusion of Big Government as the people’s savior.  Though a practicing Baptist, for Carter it was ‘in government we trust’.

Carter was a one term president.  Liberals may have liked him but the rest of the country didn’t.  Granted, he came into office with some pretty bad economic problems.  He can thank LBJ‘s Great Society for that.  The greatest explosion of government spending since FDR‘s New Deal.  And then Nixon decoupling the dollar from gold didn’t help.  The left doesn’t much care for Nixon, either.  Which is funny.  Because he governed as a liberal.  He spent money and grew government.  And when he decoupled the dollar from gold he called himself a Keynesian (i.e., a Big Government guy when it came to economics).  Carter’s misfortune was to follow all of this financial devastation.  Well, that, and the fact he didn’t have a clue about how to fix things.

Reagan did.  “Government isn’t the solution to our problems, government is the problem,” Reagan said in 1981.  And the warning Klaxons went off throughout liberal-land.   There was imminent danger.  And his name was Ronald Reagan.  You see, Carter did all the right things.  For those on the left.  And what did he get?  High inflation.  High interest rates.  And high unemployment.  They measured the economy with the misery index as we wallowed through the stagflation of the Carter years.  During the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan asked the simple question heard round the world.  Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?  Reagan went on to win the election.  So the answer was ‘no’.

Reagan Fixed the Economy and Fired Air Traffic Controllers

Reagan cut tax rates.  And the economy eventually exploded.  We said goodbye to stagflation.  And the misery index.  They were relics of the Carter years.  It was a new morning in America.  People had jobs.  They were happy.  Optimistic.  And this infuriated liberals.  Because Reagan’s conservatism flew into the face of everything they held dear.  And then came PATCO

The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization.  A federal government union.  They went on strike in 1981.  Which was against the law.  Government unions could not go on strike.  The strike shut down much of air traffic in the U.S.  This was big.  No business travel.  No sports travel.  No vacations.  No mail.  A small group of some 11,000 controllers shut down air travel.  And greatly disrupted the economy.  Reagan ordered them back to work per the law.  They refused.  He fired them.  And the left howled.

So you can see why liberals hate Reagan.  He was a destroyer and debunker of liberalism.  And the people loved him.  He won reelection with 49 states.  The man was more popular than sliced bread.  Worse, people were happy.  Whistling a happy tune while they went on their merry way.  Which is all well and good if you’re one of the ones whistling.  But when you’re part of that tiny 20% of the population that wants to run the other 80%, there was nothing to whistle about.  Reagan had become liberal enemy number one.

Reaganomics Replaces Failed Keynesian Economic Policies

So they attacked.  Then.  And now.  And they zero in on those tax rate cuts.  Sure, they say, the tax cuts stimulated the economy, but at what cost?  Huge deficits and a skyrocketing debt.  This, of course, is not true.  The cuts in the tax rates nearly doubled tax receipts.  The Democrat House (Tip O’Neil and his fellow Democrats had the power of the purse) just went on a spending spree with all that cash pouring into Washington.  Remember, all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.  Defense.  Entitlements.  And all discretionary spending.  And when tax receipts nearly doubled with cuts in the tax rates, it proved that Reagan was right.  And liberals were wrong.

But they keep repeating the lie.  Hoping that if people hear it enough people will believe it.  Then they move on to trickle-down economics.  Supply-side economics.  Reaganomics.  They love to disparage this term.  Despite the fact that under Reaganomics, the 1980s was one of the most prosperous periods in American history.  So what is supply-side economics?  Well, think of it this way.  When do you live better?  When you have a job?  Or don’t have a job?  It’s pretty hard to pay your bills if you don’t have a job.  You can’t buy gasoline.  Food.  Clothes.  Electronic toys.  Etc.  So I think most will agree that life is better when we have a job.  And where do jobs come from?  From businesses.  That are pursuing a profit.  If they can make a profit they expand their businesses.  And hire more people.  Thus creating more jobs.  And this is supply-side economics in a nutshell.  They’re economic policies that are business-friendly to encourage their growth.  So they will hire more people.

Makes sense.  To the sensible.  But not to a liberal.  Because liberals are Keynesians.  They want to redistribute the wealth.  Take money from the rich.  And give it to the poor.  They believe that is how you create economic activity.  By giving other people’s money to other people so they can spend it.  And we tried it.  Under LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter.  Didn’t work.  Liberals will blame everything under the sun why it didn’t work.  But never the ideology itself.  Which is flawed.  Because higher taxes reduce profits.  Which hinders business expansion.  Which hinders job creation.  Which hinders economic activity.  And this is exactly what happened under LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter.  Which is why Carter was a one term president.

Trickle-Down is Okay as long as it Fills Union Coffers

The funny thing is that the left often supports trickle-down economics.  Whenever they are supporting the UAW.  They support high pay and benefits for unskilled labor on the assembly line.  Because it stimulates the economy. Yes, we pay these people a lot.  But they go out and spend that money.  And that pumps a lot of money into the local economy.  We’ve all heard these arguments.  Whenever liberals are defending high union wages and benefits.  Of course, liberals got so greedy that they killed the golden goose.  Assembly plants left the country.  Robots replaced workers on the line.  The few jobs remaining have nice wage and benefit packages.  But at what cost?  Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost in the deal.  A terrible cost as jobs drive the economy.  The more the better.  While fewer higher-paid jobs just don’t help anyone but the few who have those jobs.

It’s the same thing with public sector workers.  No one has a better salary and benefit package.  For many it’s like getting two paychecks for one job.  For every dollar in pay they get something like $0.75 in benefits.  Mostly health care and pensions.  Teachers are often some of the greatest beneficiaries when you factor in all the time off they get.  There’s a reason why these public sector workers strike and never quit these ‘horrible’ jobs.  Because they can’t find a better job.  So when states and cities have trouble balancing their budgets because of out of control health care and pension costs they raise taxes.  Make the rest of us live on less.  To save these jobs.  For these good people.  Sure, we pay them a lot.  But they go out and spend that money.  And that pumps a lot of money into the local economy.

So that kind of trickle-down economics is okay.  But Reaganomics was nothing but tax breaks for the rich paid for by the working poor.  While fat union pay and benefits stimulated local economies.  A double standard?  Yes.  But there is a difference.  Trickle-down from job creators doesn’t generate a lot of union dues.  Trickle-down from union workers and the public sector do.  That’s why the liberals support unions.  Because liberals get a lot of that dues money.  And loyal foot soldiers to advance their agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,