Ronald Reagan’s Reaganomics Increased GDP and Tax Revenue, Decreased Unemployment and Tamed Inflation

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 8th, 2011

Ronald Reagan’s Supply-Side Reaganomics caused an Economic Boom

Politics is a struggle.  Between those on the Left.  And those on the Right.  And nowhere is it more partisan than when it is about one subject.  ReaganomicsRonald Reagan‘s supply-side economics.  Of the Austrian School.  That the Left belittles as trickle-down economics. 

His tax cuts during the Eighties sparked an economic boom.  No one denies this.  In fact, life was very good during the Eighties.  So good that the Left denounce those years as the Decade of Greed.  “Yes, a lot of people got rich,” the Left says.  “But at what cost?”  And then they point to those ‘soaring’ Reagan deficits.  Peaking at about $221.2 billion in 1986.  Or about $358.3 billion adjusted for inflation.  (Pretty tame by today’s standards.  Barack Obama has one in the $1.6 trillion neighborhood.)  But did Reagan cause them with his tax cuts?

To answer this question we look at historical GDP (gross domestic product).  And tax receipts.  From the Seventies and the Eighties.  From the heyday of Keynesian economics.  After the Nixon Shock in 1971. That ended the ‘gold standard‘.  When Nixon said, “I am now a Keynesian in economics.”  And through Reaganomics.  All dollar amounts are constant 2005 dollars (shown in billions).  These are graphed along with the top marginal tax rate, inflation and the unemployment rate.

(Sources: GDP, tax revenue, top marginal tax rate, inflation, unemployment)

Inflation Eroded GDP and Raised Unemployment in the Seventies

There are two relatively flat plateaus on the GDP graph.  Flat or falling GDP growth indicates a recession.  One starting sometime after 1972.  The other one around 1979. 

Both of these correspond to a spike in the inflation rate.  This happens because inflation erodes GDP.  By raising prices.  Higher prices mean we buy less.  Which means less GDP.  And higher prices tend to inflate business profits.  Where profit gains are from inflation.  Not from selling more stuff.  Which means less GDP.

Inflation is one half of the business cycle.  Which is a boom-bust cycle.  A booming economy.  And a busting recession.  Inflation.  And deflation.  Growth.  And recession. 

During growth there’s inflation.  Prices go up as more people want to buy the same things.  Bidding up prices.  The unemployment rate falls.  Because businesses are hiring more people.  To expand.  To meet this demand. 

When they expand too much there’s too much stuff on the market.  People can’t buy it all.  So prices go down.  To encourage people to buy.  And businesses cut back.  Lay people off.  With fewer people working there’s fewer people to buy that excess supply.  So prices fall more.  And businesses lay more people off.  To reflect the falling demand.  Which increases the unemployment rate.

The business cycle, then, corrects prices.  And readjusts supply to demand.  Keynesian economics was going to change this, though.  By removing the recession part.   Through permanent inflation.  At least, that was the plan.  The two plateaus in the GDP graph shows that the business cycle is still here despite their best efforts.   

And the Keynesians only made things worse.  By causing double-digit inflation.  By creating more demand than existed in the market.  People used that easy money.  To buy things they wouldn’t have otherwise bought.  Creating ‘bubbles’ of inflated prices.  Which are corrected by recessions.  And the greater the bubble, the greater the recession.

Easy Monetary Policy (i.e., Printing Money) made Inflation Worse in the Seventies

Government spent a lot during the Seventies.  A lot of that was Keynesian spending paid for with easy monetary policy (i.e., printing money).  Something governments can only do.  They are the only ones that can say, “Use these paper bills as legal tender.  We guarantee it.”

Making fiat money is easy.  But there is a cost.  The more you make the more you devalue your currency.  That’s the cost of inflation.  Money loses some of its purchasing power.  The greater the inflation the greater loss of purchasing power. 

They printed a lot of money during the late Seventies.  So much that the dollar lost a lot of its purchasing power.  Hence the double-digit inflation.

Paul Volcker was a Federal Reserve chairman.  He started in the last year of Jimmy Carter‘s presidency.  And remained chairman for about 8 years.  He raised interest rates severely.  To constrict the money supply.  To pull a lot of those excess dollars out of circulation.  This caused a bad recession for Reagan.  But it killed the double-digit inflation beast.  This sound money policy was a tenet of Reaganomics.  Which was an integral part of the Eighties boom.

Reagan’s Tax Cuts Increased both GDP and Tax Revenue

The hallmark of Reaganomics, of course, is low taxes.  Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate.  He dropped it from 70% to 28% in four cuts.  After the first cut GDP took off.   Because rich people reentered the economy. 

They weren’t parking their money in investments that helped them avoid paying the top marginal tax rate.  They were starting up businesses.  Or buying business.  Creating jobs.  Because the lower tax rates provided an incentive to earn business profits.  And not settle for lower interest income.  Or capital gains. 

For business profits can be far greater than interest earned on ‘income tax avoiding’ investments.  Such as government bonds.  And if we don’t penalize rich people for risk-taking they will take risks.  Create another Microsoft.  Or Apple.  But they are less likely to do that if they know we will penalize them for it.  And that’s what a high marginal tax rate is.  A penalty.  Remove this penalty and they will choose risky profits over safe interest every time.  And make a lot of jobs along the way.

And this is what they did during the Eighties.  Their ‘greed’ created a boom in employment.  A rising GDP.  Accompanied with a falling unemployment rate.  Rich people were pulling their money out of tax shelters.  And putting it into businesses.  Where they could make fat profits.  And making fat profits in business requires employees.  Jobs.  Unlike making money with safe tax-sheltered investments. 

Tax revenue increased.  There were more business profits.  And more business income taxes on those profits.  There were more jobs.  More employees in the workforce.  Paying more payroll taxes.  And more personal income taxes

Successful businesses made more rich people.  And more rich people pay more income taxes than fewer rich people.  A lot more.  The top marginal tax rate was lower.  But there were more businesses and people paying taxes.   Because the lower rates created more taxpayers.  And richer taxpayers to tax.  Which increased overall tax revenue.

Tax Revenue Increased under Reaganomics but Government Spending simply Increased More

So to summarize the data during Reaganomics, GDP grew, tax revenue grew, unemployment fell and inflation was tame.  All the things you want in a healthy economy.  And this all happened when the top marginal tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%. 

So, no, the Reagan deficits were NOT caused by the Reagan tax cuts.  That’s a myth created by the Left to revise history.  To recast the successful policies of Ronald Reagan as failures.  So they can continue in their tax and spend ways.

Those deficits were a spending problem.  Not a revenue problem.  For tax revenue increased after the tax cuts.  So why the deficits?  Because government spending simply increased more.


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

LESSONS LEARNED #75: “Lower income tax rates generate more tax revenue by making more rich people who pay more income taxes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 21st, 2011

Inflation is a Bitch

The top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower administration peaked at 92%.  When it wasn’t at 92% it was at 91%.  This was post-war America.  A happy time.  They even named a TV series after this time.  Happy Days.  Life was good.  There were jobs aplenty.  And lots of baby making.  Everyone lived happily ever after.  Until the war-devastated economies rebuilt themselves and didn’t need American manufacturing anymore.

Things started to change in the Sixties.  Sure, a top marginal tax rate of 92% was high.  But few paid it.  Creative accounting and useful tax shelters avoided that punishing rate.  But government was still fat and happy with the money it was collecting.  Until the Vietnam War came along.  Johnson‘s Great Society.  And let’s not forget the Apollo moon program.  With renewed competition for American manufacturing, trouble in the oil-rich Middle East and rising inflation, the Seventies weren’t going to be happy.

And they weren’t.  Oil shockNixon shockStagflationMiseryKeynesian economics says to tax and spend to tweak the economy back to health.  When you can’t tax enough, you borrow.  When you can’t borrow, you print.  Nothing is more important than creating demand where no demand exists.  Give consumers more money to spend and ignore the debt, deficit and inflation.  The problem is, inflation is a bitch.

Reaganomics increased GDP 82.9%

Ronald Reagan routed Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election.  Carter’s economic numbers were some of the worst in history.  Double digit interest rates, unemployment and inflation.  All being flamed by an expansionary Keynesian monetary policy.  Until Paul Volcker took over the Fed during Carter’s last year or so in office.  And there really is only one way to cure a bad inflation.  With a bad recession.  And the Reagan recession of the early 1980s was one of the more severe ones.

Reagan was from the Austrian school of economics.  Supply-side.  His Reaganomics embraced the following tenets: cut spending, cut taxes, cut regulation and cut inflation.  In 1980 the top marginal tax rate was 70%.  When he left office it was 28%.  During his 8 years in office he took GDP from $2,788.1 billion to $5,100.4 billion (an increase of 82.9%).

The Reagan critics will note this explosive economic growth and say, “Yeah, but at what cost?  Record deficits.”  True, Reagan had some of the highest deficits up to his time.  But those deficits had nothing to do with his tax cuts.  For Reagan increased tax revenue from $798.7 billion to $1,502.4 billion (an increase of 88.1%).  Those deficits weren’t from a lack of revenue.  They were from an excess of spending.  And, therefore, not the fault of the Reagan tax cuts.

A Downward Trend in Prices is like an Upward Trend in Wages

And the Reagan critic will counter this with, “Sure, the economy grew.  But the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.”  Yes, his income and capital gains tax cuts made a lot of rich people.  But they also transferred the tax burden from the poor to the rich.  In 1980, the top 1% of earners paid 19.1% of all federal income taxes.  By the time he left office that number grew to 27.6% (an increase of 44.8%).  Meanwhile the bottom 50% of earners paid less.  Their share fell from 7.1% to 5.7% (a decrease of 18.9%).

Of course, the Reagan critic will then note that Reagan slashed domestic spending to pay for his military spending.  Well, yes, Reagan did spend a lot.  He increased spending from $846.5 billion to $1,623.6 billion (or an increase of 91.8%).  But he made a tax deal with Congress.  For every new $1 in taxes Congress would cut $3 in spending.  Those spending cuts never came.  Hence Reagan’s monstrous $200 billion deficits.  That’s a lot of money for both guns and butter.

But the greatest thing he did for low-income people was curbing inflation.  High inflation makes everything cost more, leaving low-income people with less to live on.  In 1980, inflation was at 13.5%.  When Reagan left office he had lowered it to 4.1% (a decrease of 69.6%).  No one benefited more from this reduction in inflation than low-income people.  A downward trend in prices is like an upward trend in wages.

The Reagan Economy was Better than the Clinton Economy

The Reagan critic likes to point to the Clinton years as a better economic period with better economic (and fairer) policies.  The Nineties were a period of economic growth.  But even with the dot-com bubble near the end of that period the Clinton GDP growth of 56.9% was less than Reagan’s 82.9%.   

Whereas Reagan achieved spectacular GDP growth while fighting inflation, the Clinton growth did not have to slay the inflation beast.  In fact, inflation rose from 3.0% to 3.4% during his two terms, indicting the GDP growth was not as real as Reagan’s.  Reagan’s was measured with a strengthening dollar.  Clinton’s was measured with a weakening dollar.  Also, real prices fell under Reagan.  While they rose under Clinton.  Making life more expensive for low-income people under Clinton than under Reagan.

Thanks to the dot-com boom, though, Clinton continued to transfer the tax burden to the rich.  He experienced a wind-fall of capital gains tax revenue when all those rich dot-com people cashed in their stock options.  In 1992, the top 1% of earners paid 27.4% of all federal income taxes.  By the time he left office that number grew to 37.4%.  This was an increase of 35.9% (compared to Reagan’s 44.8%).  Meanwhile the bottom 50% of earners paid less, too.  Their share fell from 5.1% to 3.9%.  This was a decrease of 22.7% (compared to Reagan’s 18.9%). 

Over all, though, Clinton’s policies increased tax revenue 69.8% compared to Reagan’s 88.1%.  And this was with the dot-com boom thrown in.  Had there been no dot-com bubble (that burst after he left office) no doubt his GDP and tax revenue would have been less.  Some of this economic dampening perhaps being caused by his increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. 

Both Reagan and Clinton made more Rich People

Reagan’s tax cuts led to an economic boom.  He cut inflation making life more affordable for lower-income people.  And he transferred the tax burden to the rich.

Clinton increased taxes.  His economic boom was good but not great.  A big part of his GDP growth and tax revenue was due more to irrational exuberance than real economic growth. 

But both Reagan and Clinton made more rich people.  And these rich people paid more taxes.  And because they did low-income people paid less.  Which would seem to prove that the best way to increase tax revenue (and make the tax system more progressive) would be to create more rich people.  And yet the very people who want to do this advance policies that work against these objectives.  Why?

Politics.  Sure, the Austrian school of economics has a proven track record over the Keynesian school.  But Austrian school economics has a terrible side affect.  It doesn’t grow government.  And all the economic growth and tax revenue doesn’t mean a thing if you lose your comfy federal job.  At least to a Big Government politician.


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

LESSONS LEARNED #62: “The government’s great dilemma is that the middle class has both the money and the votes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 21st, 2011

We’re Moving on Up

Those on the Left see the world through zero-sum eyes.  Especially taxes.  For example, let’s look at the taxes of a group of 100 people.  These one hundred can be broken down into three groups.  Poor (20), middle class (79) and rich (1).  With the following annual salaries.  Poor ($15,000), middle class ($50,000) and rich ($1,000,000).  Based on the 2008 tax tables (with a top marginal tax rate of 35%), they each pay $4,600, $17,000 and $454,000, respectfully.  The total each group pays, then, is $91,000 (poor), $1,342,000 (middle class) and $454,000 (rich).  Which is 4.8%, 71% and 24%, respectfully, of the total tax paid.  The largest group of people pays the largest percentage of the total tax burden.  The middle class.  (All numbers are approximate.)

Now, let’s do a little zero-sum analysis.  And figure out how to make the rich pay a larger share of the taxes.  Hmmm.  How about we raise the tax rate on the rich?  If we raise the top marginal tax rate to 45%, the taxes the one rich person pays goes from 24% to 28%.  And the taxes the middle class pay goes from 71% to 68%.  So, to reduce the tax burden on the middle class, we simply have to raise the top marginal tax rates.  Simple, right?  Wrong.  Because what happens in reality is the opposite of what most would think.  As you raise the tax rate on the rich, the total tax burden shifts from the rich to the poor and middle class.  Why?  Because of one fundamental flaw in their analysis.  Which is this.

Life is not zero-sum.  People don’t always stay in the same economic class.  They work hard.  Earn money through the years.  Some even save enough money to open a business.  And some of these do become rich.  And when they do, they pay a lot more taxes than they did when they were poor or middle class.  And this is the very thing that high marginal tax rates discourage.  Upward economic movement.  As the poor move into the middle class.  And the middle class move into the rich class.  This is why low, not high, tax rates shifts the tax burden from the poor and middle class to the rich.  Because low tax rates make more rich people to tax.

The Roaring Twenties were Kicked off by Tax Cuts

Andrew Mellon was a rich banker.  Who understood business.  Warren G. Harding tapped him to be his Secretary of the Treasury.  World War I was over.  And there was a huge war debt to pay off.  Taxes were high.  And the progressives wanted to raise them higher.  But Mellon was a conservative.  And he knew that you just didn’t stimulate economic activity with high taxes.  And that’s what paid the bills.  Economic activity.  People gainfully employed and paying taxes.  So he cut taxes.  They cut the top marginal tax rate from 77% to 25% (a cut of 68%).  Which gave us the Roaring Twenties.  Electricity, appliances, radio, you name it, the modern age had come.  Everyone was working.  And buying stuff.  Times were good.

Sure, you’re saying, but at what cost?  The economy took off into the stratosphere but the rich got a free ride.  With their tax rate cut of 200%, the poor and middle class must have been stuck with the tax bill.  Right?  Wrong.  With the lower tax rates, the rich found it cheaper and easier to pay taxes than to shelter it.  Also, the lower rates encouraged innovation (i.e., the modern age).  Lots of people got rich.  There was a lot of upward movement through the economic classes.  So there were more rich people paying taxes.  In 1920, the very rich paid approximately 30% of all federal income taxes.  That number jumped up to 62% by 1929.  That’s an increase of 108%. 

If the name of the game is funding government, you got to like what happened in the Twenties.  Because the government got fat on tax receipts.  And the richest of the rich were paying about twice the amount of taxes they were at the beginning of the decade.  That is a huge transfer of the tax burden from the poor/middle class to the rich.  And the federal debt?  It fell from about $26 billion to $17 billion.  That’s a decrease of about 35%.  Lower tax rates, tax burden transferred to the rich and a lower debt.  Wow.  Mellon was right.  Cutting tax rates on the rich works.  And it works very well.

The Eighties Economic Boom was Kicked off by Tax Cuts

Ronald Reagan was another conservative who understood business.  He defeated Jimmy Carter who was trying to win a second term.  But the malaise and stagflation of the Jimmy Carter years made him a one-term president.  To lift the nation out of recession, Reagan did like Andrew Mellon.  And cut taxes.  The top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 28% (a 60% cut).  And economic activity exploded.  Especially in Silicon Valley.  And the world went high-tech.  Electronics and computers entered our lives.  A new modern age had come.  Everyone was working.  And buying stuff.  Times were good.  Again.

At the beginning of the Reagan years the top 1% paid about 19% of all income taxes.  At the end of his second term they were paying about 27.5%.  That’s an increase of 44%.  Once again, tax cutsfor the rich transferred the tax burden from the poor/middle class to the rich.  As in the Twenties, the rich found it easier to pay their taxes rather than trying to shelter it.  Also, the lower rates encouraged a lot of entrepreneurial innovation.  We used the first cell phones and personal computers in the Eighties.  A lot of this innovation started small in someone’s garage.  And ended in an IPO on Wall Street as they took their companies public.  Lots of people got rich.  Creating a surge of upward movement through the economic classes.  Making many more rich people to tax. 

The Reagan years were an economic juggernaut.  A lot of people got rich.  But at what cost?  The debt exploded under Reagan.  So those on the Left jumped on this.  They say his tax cuts mortgaged our future.  Impoverished our children.  By not paying our bills along the way.  To that I say, “Nice try.”  That debt had nothing to do with the Reagan tax cuts.  It was a spending problem.  Federal tax receipts in 1980 were $517 billion.  After Reagan’s tax rate cuts, they jumped to $909 billion in 1988.  That’s an increase of about 76%.  Lower tax rates, tax burden transferred to the rich and a 75% increase in federal tax receipts?  Wow.  Reagan was right.  Cutting tax rates on the rich works.  And it works very well.

Conservative Policies Favor the Poor and Middle Class

So there are two great economic booms created by tax cuts.  Both periods lifted the country to a new modern age.  People’s standard of living improved across all economic classes.  And a lot people moved up through the economic classes.  Which is key to the success of tax cuts.  And the reason why those on the Left ignore this and focus instead on zero-sum policies.  Why?

Because the Left knows their economic policies don’t work.  But that’s okay with them.  For their policies aren’t about the economy.  Or your well being.  They are about political power.  There are more poor and middle class people than rich.  No matter how far you slash the top marginal tax rate.  So that’s where the votes are.  And a good way to get those votes is with class warfare.  The rich have an unfair advantage.  And with your vote, they will right that wrong.  Sounds good.  Especially if you’re not rich.  Or don’t know the history of high marginal tax rates.  Of how they transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor and middle class.

Of course, there’s a problem with this strategy.  It transfers more and more of the tax burden to the people you need votes from.  And the more you choke off economic activity by taxing the rich, the more you starve the treasury of tax dollars from the rich.  Which means you have to come up with more and more clever ways to bleed the middle class.  And they don’t have a problem with this either.  What they have a problem with is that the middle class may figure this out one day.  And vote conservative.  Whose policies actually favor the poor/middle class.


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

LESSONS LEARNED #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 24th, 2010

THOMAS JEFFERSON HATED Alexander Hamilton.  So much so he hired Philip Freneau as a translator in his State Department in George Washington’s administration.  You see, Jefferson did not like confrontation.  So he needed a way to slander Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration without getting his own hands dirty.  And that was what Freneau was supposed to do with the money he earned while working in the State Department.  Publish a newspaper (National Gazette) and attack Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration.  Papers then were partisan.  More so than today.  Then, lies and libel were tools of the trade.  And they knew how to dig up the dirt.  Or make it up. 

Another scandalmonger, James Callender, was slinging dirt for Jefferson.  And he hit pay dirt.  Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds of Philadelphia had a lucrative business.  They were blackmailing Alexander Hamilton.  Mr. Reynolds had his wife seduce Hamilton.  Which she did.  And did well.  They had an affair.  And Mr. Reynolds then blackmailed him.  Jefferson pounced.  Or, rather, Callender did.  To keep Jefferson’s hands clean.  Hamilton, Callender said, was using his position at the Treasury Department for personal gain.  He was using public funds to pay the blackmailer.  They found no proof of this.  And they did look for it.  Hard.  But when they came up empty, Jefferson said that it just proved what a good thief Hamilton was.  He was so good that he didn’t leave any traces of his treachery behind.

Of course, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  And Jefferson’s association with Callender would come back and bite him in the ass.  In a big way.  Upset because Jefferson didn’t appropriately compensate him for all his loyal dirt slinging (he wanted the postmaster’s job in Richmond), he publicized the Sally Hemings rumors.  And after breaking the true story of the Hamilton affair, many would believe this scoop.  That Jefferson was having an affair with one of his slaves.  It was a dark cloud that would forever hang over Jefferson.  And his legacy.

Hamilton admitted to his affair.  Jefferson admitted to no affair.  Hamilton would never hold public office again and would later die in a duel with Jefferson’s one-time toady, Aaron Burr.  This duel resulted because Hamilton was doing whatever he could to keep the amoral and unscrupulous Burr from public office (in this case, it was the governorship of New York).  When the election of 1800 resulted in a tie between Jefferson and Burr, Hamilton urged the House to vote for Jefferson, his archenemy.   Despite what had appeared in the press, Hamilton did have morals and scruples.  Unlike some.  Speaking of which, Jefferson would go on to serve 2 terms as president.  And all of that angst about Hamiltonian policies?  They all went out the window with the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, Big Government and Big Finance).

RONALD REAGAN WAS routinely called old, senile and out of touch by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  But he bested Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, something Jimmy Carter never did.  He said ‘no’ at Reykjavik because he told the American people that he wouldn’t give up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  He knew the Soviet Union was bleeding.  Communism was a farce.  It inhibited human capital.  And impoverished her people.  SDI may have been science fiction in the 1980s, but capitalism wasn’t.  It could do it all.  Including SDI.  The Soviet Union was on the ropes and Reagan would give no quarter.  The days of living in fear of the mushroom cloud were over.  And capitalism would deliver the knockout punch.

Reaganomics, of course, made this all possible.  Supply-side economics.  Which follows the Austrian school.  Say’s Law.  ‘Supply creates demand’.  You don’t stimulate the economy by taxing one group of people so another group can spend.  You stimulate it by creating incentives for risk takers to take risks.  And when they do, they create jobs.  And wealth.

Tax and spend is a failed Keynesian, zero-sum economic policy.  When you take from the earners and give to the non-earners, we just transfer purchasing power.  We don’t create it.  For some to spend more, others must spend less.  Hence, zero-sum.  The net some of goods and services people are purchasing remains the same.  Different people are just doing the purchasing.

When Apple invented the Macintosh personal computer (PC), few were demanding a PC with a graphical user interface (GUI).  But Apple was innovative.  They created something they thought the people would want.  And they did.  They took a risk.  And the Macintosh with its mouse and GUI took off.  Apple manufacturing increased and added jobs.  Retail outlets for the Macintosh expanded and created jobs.  Software firms hired more engineers to write code.  And other firms hired more people to engineer and manufacture PC accessories.  There was a net increase in jobs and wealth.  Just as Say’s Law predicts.  Supply-side economics works.

Of course, the Left hates Reagan and attacked Reaganomics with a vengeance.  They attacked Reagan for being pro-rich.  For not caring about the poor.  And they revised history.  They say the only thing the Reagan tax cuts gave us were record deficits.  Of course, what those tax cuts gave us were record tax receipts.  The government never collected more money.  The House of Representatives (who spends the money), awash in cash, just spent that money faster than the treasury collected it.  The record shows Reaganomics worked.  Lower tax rates spurred economic activity.  More activity generated more jobs and more personal wealth.  Which resulted in more people paying more taxes.  More people paying taxes at a lower rate equaled more tax revenue in the aggregate.  It works.  And it works every time people try it. 

Because Reaganomics worked and showed the Left’s policies were failures, they had to attack Reagan.  To discredit him.  They had to destroy the man.  Except when they’re running for elected office.  Then they strive to show how much more Reagan-like they are than their conservative opponents.  Because they know Reaganomics worked.  And they know that we know Reaganomics worked.

GEORGE W. BUSH was routinely called an ‘idiot’ by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  Yet this ‘idiot’ seems to have outwitted the elite of the liberal Left time and time again.  I mean, if their policies were winning, they would be no reason to have attacked Bush in the first place.  The Left hated him with such vitriol that they said he blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 as a justification for invading Iraq for her oil.  It was Big Oil’s lust for profit, after all, that was driving this Texan’s Big Oil policies.  And taking Iraq’s oil would increase Big Oil’s sales and give her even more obscene profits.

If Bush was an idiot, he must have been an idiot genius to come up with a plan like that.  Then again, gasoline prices crept to $4/gallon following the Iraq War.  Had all that oil gone on the market according to plan, that wouldn’t have happened.  Unless the plan was to keep that oil OFF of the market, thus, by rules of supply and demand, the price of oil (and the gasoline we make from it) would go up thus enriching Big Oil through higher prices resulting from a lower sales volume.  My god, what evil genius.  For an idiot.  Of course, gas taxes, numerous summer gas blends (required by the government’s environmental policies), an aging and over-taxed pipeline infrastructure and insufficient refinery capacity (the government’s environmental policies make it too punishing even to consider building a new refinery) to meet increasing demand (soaring in India and China) had nothing to do with the rise in gas prices.

IS THE POLITICAL Left evil?  Probably not.  Just amoral.  They have an agenda.  They survive on political spoils and patronage.  Old time politics.  Enrich themselves through cronyism.  If tribute is paid they’ll extend favorable treatment.  If tribute is not paid, they will release their wrath via hostile regulation, litigation, Congressional investigation and punitive taxation.  Just like they did to Big Tobacco (and, no, it wasn’t about our health.  They could have just made tobacco illegal.  But they didn’t.  Why?  It just brings in way too much money to the government.  Via sin taxes.  And federal lawsuits.  And with it being addictive, it’s a frickin cash piñata for them.)

They know few agree with their philosophy.  But they don’t care.  It’s not about national prosperity.  It’s about power.  And they want it.  That’s why they can’t debate the issues.  They know they can’t win.  So they attack the messenger.  Not the message.  If you don’t believe that, you can ask Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and just about any other Republican.  Well, you can’t ask Lincoln or Reagan.  But you can guess what they would say.


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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #7: “High on the endangered species list is the objective journalist.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2010

JOURNALISM USED TO be about gathering information.  Journalists answered the six questions: who, what, when, where, why and how.  For instance, if someone was murdered, they would ask witnesses who, what, when, where, why and how.  They’d then write their story.  In the process, though, they’d never say anything like the dead son of a bitch had it coming.  Even if he was a bad, bad man.  Because that was opinion.  And journalists dealt in facts, not opinion.  At least, they used to.

Before journalists report today they check their talking points.  On the Left, if a radical pro-life activist kills an abortionist it gets huge coverage.  If a leftist anti-American radical kills a group of soldiers on an American military base, though, it doesn’t.  Radicalism on the Right is all right and encouraged.  Radicalism on the Left is swept under the rug as best as it can.

We’re talking about journalists in the mainstream media (MSM) here.  FOX News ran both stories without editorializing.

FOX NEWS IS the most attacked media outlet perhaps in the world.  It’s them against everyone else.  That fact alone should tell you something.  It tells me something.

Lots of things come in twos.  The struggle between good and evil.  Great sport rivalries.  Binary numbers.  And, apparently, news.  There’s the news put out by the MSM.  And the news put out by FOX News.  They both accuse the other of bias.  FOX says the MSM leans left.  The MSM says FOX leans right. 

But sometimes the MSM is being disingenuous when they include opinion pundits like Glenn Beck.  He’s not a news reporter.  He provides opinion.  The Left doesn’t like his opinion.  That’s okay, but you can’t call FOX biased because of Beck.

THERE ARE MANY examples of bias on the Left.  And it’s coming from their news departments, not their pundits.  We’ve noted two already.  Here’s another.  One of the biggest was and continues to be about the Reagan tax rate cuts.  The political Left repeats ad nauseam that the tax rate cuts exploded the deficit.  And the MSM repeats the lie.  The tax rate cuts didn’t explode the deficit, though.  The facts are there for anyone to check.  The lower tax rates brought in more tax money into the treasury.  No, it was explosive spending that exploded the deficit.  Somehow the MSM always omits this very important and salient fact when discussing the effects of tax rate cuts.

The MSM broke Watergate and Iran-Gate (both with Republican targets) but not Trooper-Gate (the one with Paula Jones and the Democratic governor).  When another trooper-gate broke out (this one with a Republican governor) the MSM was all over that like ugly on a pig.  Ideology, apparently, matters in determining what is news.

The MSM did not follow or investigate President Clinton’s adolescent daughter.  That’s good.  When the MSM learned that Sarah Palin’s unmarried adolescent daughter was pregnant, though, lookout.  They pounced on her like a pack of hyenas.   Not good.  The political left, though, was okay with it.  Even the feminists didn’t object.  Or, if they did, they were not very loud.  Political expediency apparently dictates whether an adolescent daughter is off limits.

When it comes to the MSM, it would appear bias counts.  News is news when it agrees with your bias.  News is not news when it doesn’t.

THEN BIAS BECOMES political activism.  Ronald Reagan won two presidential elections with huge majorities.  In his reelection he carried all but one state.  He didn’t pretend to be a Democrat.  He campaigned as a conservative.  A lot of Democrats liked his message.  They became Reagan Democrats.

The 8 years of Reagan was an embarrassment to the Left.  When it was conservative versus liberal, conservatism won.  At least that’s what history has shown.  The Left took the biggest drubbings ever during the Reagan elections.  And they weren’t happy about that.  They wanted an opponent in the 2008 general election who wasn’t a bona fide conservative.  Enter John McCain.

The MSM fawned over John McCain during the 2008 Republican primaries.  They said he was the future of the Republican Party.  Or should be.  They said the era of Reagan was over.  And the MSM hammered home that message.  McCain good.  Reagan bad.  Moderate independent good.  Conservative bad.  The MSM lauded McCain’s ability to reach across the aisle.  They warned people about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism.   

DURING PRIMARY ELECTIONS, politicians compete against each other for their party’s base.  In 2008, though, some Independents and Democrats crossed over and voted in the Republican primaries.  Republicans, Independents and Democrats, then, nominated the Republican candidate.  Kinda defeats the purpose of having a Republican primary election.

When it got time for the general election, then, well, you can see what happened.  The independents and Democrats who voted for McCain during the primaries then voted for the bona fide Democrat in the general election, not McCain.  Surprise, surprise.

The MSM got what they wanted.  The general election was not conservative versus liberal.  It was moderate/independent versus moderate/independent.  And the Democrat version won.

IT WOULD APPEAR that not only is the MSM biased, but they are working with the Democrat Party.  The Democrats issue talking points and the MSM dutifully recites them on their media outlets.  The only one not toeing the party line is FOX News.  And if you believe in a free press, then that’s a good thing.  It’s good to have at least one objective voice left for the people.


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