The American Spectator : Obama's Race to the Past

Obama's Race to the Past

By Peter Ferrara on 1.14.09 @ 6:09AM

Barack Obama explained the principles behind his economic stimulus package last Sunday on ABC's This Week with former Clinton Administration official George Stephanopoulos. Obama said:

"But our general philosophy is….we don't have pride of authorship. There are a couple of basic principles I laid out. We've got to move quickly. We've got to make sure that any investments that we make have good long term benefits for the economy, not just short term….We can't have waste and abuse in it. We can't have earmarks in it….If people have better ideas on certain provisions, if they say, you know, this is going to work better than that, then we welcome that."

That's all. Just good government principles. No ideological blinders here. We are completely open to whatever works. Or as his spokeswoman said last week, "We are guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."

This is political propaganda coldly calculated to distract the public from Obama's highly ideological agenda that studiously avoids everything that would work, because Obama and his ultraliberal Democrats ideologically object to it, and studiously focuses only on what was tried and failed long ago, because Obama and the retro Ds are all ideologically so nostalgic for that.

What Works

We know how to get the economy booming again. The fundamental, practical principles of economics have worked over and over again, wherever they have been tried, throughout human history. Reagan's economic recovery program was based on these principles, with 4 concrete components reiterated over and over again throughout his campaign, and implemented after he was elected.

Those components were (1) across the board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, starting and expanding businesses, job creation, entrepreneurship, and work, (2) removing the costs of unnecessary regulation, which today would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production, allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, and revival of the nuclear power industry, (3) controlling government spending, which contrary to longstanding liberal propaganda Reagan did do, as explained in my article in the November 2008 American Spectator, "When the Republicans Cut Spending," and (4) sound anti-inflation monetary policy.

We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's, suffering from multi-year double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. What we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but The Worst Economy Since Jimmy Carter, which was the last time Obama's ultraliberals were dominant, politically and intellectually.

Indeed, these Reagan policies not only ended the disastrous stagflation of the 1970s, but created what economists Art Laffer and Steve Moore have rightly noted was the 25-year economic boom, from 1982 to 2007, the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. This was recounted in detail in my October 8 column, "Prepare for the Worst." So, yes, we do know how to create an economic boom. But notice how the Obama/liberal Democrat stimulus package so carefully avoids all of the above components of the successful Reagan economic recovery package. That is for ideological reasons, not practical reasons.

Let's Try What Never Worked Instead

The much ballyhooed Obama stimulus "tax cuts" avoid entirely any reductions in tax rates at all, because Obama considers such rate reductions ideologically immoral. The centerpiece of the proposal is the $500 per worker tax credit, which is another tax rebate giveaway just like the supposed $164 billion stimulus package that Bush and the Democrats agreed on and adopted at the beginning of last year. We all know now how well that worked. Why are we doing the exact same thing now one year later? Where the heck is the change? As discussed in detail in my column last week, this and the rest of the Obama supposed tax cut package will not stimulate anything, because it does not involve any change in the fundamental incentives that govern the economy, and just borrowing $150 billion from the private economy to cover for the $150 billion revenue loss from Obama's braindead tax credit will not add anything to the economy on net.

On regulation, Reagan specifically campaigned in 1980 on unleashing the private sector to produce more energy supplies to counter the energy crisis of his day. He did so soon after entering office, and the price of oil and natural gas plunged and remained low for over 25 years. If we did the same today, if we removed needless regulatory barriers to increased oil and gas and nuclear energy production, we would enjoy booming energy industries that contributed mightily to the economy. We would also boost the entire economy, but particularly manufacturing, with low cost, reliable supplies of energy.

But, again, Obama's stimulus package is not going to do anything like this, because Obama and his ultraliberal Democrats are ideologically opposed to it. Instead, they are talking about doing just the opposite. Their global warming cap and trade regulation would impose limits on the use of current energy supplies, and raise their costs sharply. During the campaign, in fact, Obama told radical environmentalist groups that he would drive the U.S coal industry out of business by making it too expensive for them to operate. Plentiful U.S. coal supplies now produce 50% of America's electricity. Cap and trade legislation would impose at least a trillion dollars of increased costs every year on the American economy. Suddenly we are talking about trillions all the time, and nobody knows what that means. But the total federal budget for fiscal 2008 was $3 trillion, so a trillion dollars in new costs is the equivalent of increasing that federal budget by one-third. These increased costs are just going to drive manufacturing completely out of the country. And this is just the beginning of the increased regulatory costs Obama and the ultraliberal Democrats envision.

Obama argues that he is going to get the country booming by creating new green alternative energy industries like solar and wind. If there are any regulatory barriers to these alternative energy industries, removing them would be fine. But what Obama is talking about is creating new industries dependent on government spending and corporate welfare for survival. That is not going to promote economic growth, that is just going to be another drain on the economy.

On government spending, while Obama talks about this or that minor spending reduction, overall he is promoting the greatest increase in government spending in world history, again just the opposite of Reagan, again to serve his big government ideology. Obama's budget in a couple of weeks will propose a spending increase over the fiscal 2008 budget of at least 50%, with a budget deficit at least 50% as large as the entire 2008 budget, close to $1.5 trillion or more, again the largest in world history by far. This is true fiscal insanity. Liberals weeped and wailed for years that Reagan's $200 billion deficits would be the end of the world.

Page: 1 2 >

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Economics

Jason| 1.14.09 @ 6:37AM

Unfortunately, Obama will be very much like FDR. The parallels are impossible to ignore.
http://www.rightklik.net/

Robert Rosencrans| 1.14.09 @ 7:15AM

Yes, it looks like Obama and his F-Troop are cobbling together an economic disaster while claiming it is Nirvana.

I used to know an old farmer who I heard state several times over the years, "You can't make chickens out of chicken crap!"

Eric| 1.14.09 @ 7:46AM

If anybody is looking for the Article "When the Republicans Cut Spending," it is actually September 2008 not November.

Deborah| 1.14.09 @ 7:54AM

I think Washington, D.C. actually exists in an alternate universe where politicians can do no wrong and things that worked in the past must be avoided at all costs. The mainstream media just refuses to look deeply into what looks to be a train wreck in the making. I keep looking for evidence of any rational thinking, but I search in vain. It's the triumph of "hope" over experience.

country boy| 1.14.09 @ 8:31AM

The media portrayal of Obama is that he is twofold: 1) an insightful leader and, 2) a man of great intellect (IQ 138).

I would wager anybody $50 that these are wild tales manufactured out of a machine similar to what creates movies in Hollywood.

jerryofva| 1.14.09 @ 8:40AM

Jason:

I think you slight FDR. His wartime leadership redeemed his failure to end the Depression. Obama is actually more like Woodrow Wilson, another overhyped Democratic President whose policies ultimately led to disaster.

Trotter| 1.14.09 @ 8:46AM

"We can't have earmarks in it"

But, if we just call the earmarks investing in our future and chil'ren........

Joan Wilder| 1.14.09 @ 9:33AM

Add to all this, Obama's socialist agenda - see Hannity's reporting of top B.O. aide revealed to be international socialist - check out Fox.

Tim| 1.14.09 @ 10:11AM

Race to the Past!
Now let's see here.
Obama is returning to the grand old days of Honest Abe Lincoln and FDR and is allowing the country to be governed by the Clinton Machine.

Heck all we need now is "out-houses" and the horse and buggy and we are all set.

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:13AM

This is sloppy analysis, Peter. GDP did not grow under Reagan any more than any other President. Debt increased (in real/GDP dollars) more than any other President except Bush2. In other words, he held down spending so that our children could pay for it later. He was older, I guess, and didn't care about younger people. Furthermore, the stock market gained far more under Clinton, than Reagan.

Using Reagan/Bush2 as examples of non-Keynesian ideologies that worked is not only highly suspect, but is intellectually weak. But then again, the people that will read this don't want to know the truth.

The fact is that using one economic philosophy over another is an oversimplification that is not worthy of good government. There are strengths and weaknesses of any economic theory. In fact, most supply side economists agree that there is a positive return for some stimulus spending and it is necessary right now. Furthermore, I would maintain that supply side theories are less effective today than they were two decades ago due to increases in productivity and globalization. That is not to say that a pure Keynesian approach would be any better.

I would much prefer to see a pragmatic approach to our problems. If a specific stimulus has a positive payback, we should support it. If it does not, we should fight it. As for tax cuts, we should look at it the same way. However, the theory that tax cuts are always good for the economy was proven wrong, at least partially, by both the Reagan and Bush2 administrations.

ottovbvs| 1.14.09 @ 10:24AM

One of the interesting features of what happening after the substantial defeats of 06 and 08 is that conservatives seem to be retreating into an alternate reality now they no longer have the power to create their own. It's manifestations are attempts to depict FDR as the architect or prolonger of the depression; claims that supply side deficit financing in either the Reagan or Bush administrations was a success; the elevation of free markets over the need to police the actions of a lot of greedy bankers; the notion that Obama is an international socialist or has a phony birth certificate. Collectively this sort of stuff and much else out there just demonstrates the divide that's opening up between the mainstream of the country and conservatism. I've got news for you Reagonomics is being universally questioned even by alumni of such citadels of free market thinking like Chicago University and the economic problems facing the country are much more similar to those of 1932 than 1980 when there was no systemic threat to the entire banking system as there is now and was back in the thirties. If you don't get that simple distinction you clearly don't have a great grasp of what your talking about or are spinning. Laffer and Moore are a joke in even conservative economic circles so quoting them is a poor reference. We have to break out of this nonsense or it's going to be a long time before we the inside of the white house again. I don't expect anyone to believe this but perhaps we'll talk again in eight years time.

Trotter| 1.14.09 @ 10:33AM

Bob & Otto:

It was the spending, stupid. I continue to be amazed at so-called economists who use the Reagan years as evidence that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. Yet, most of those same economists strangely (conveniently?) rarely mention the staggering spending increases that took place (especially true durung Bush 2).

Of course, if most of the economists are in lock-step with Paul Krugman, they are of the belief that fed spending is good. Never mind that increased fed spending is contrary to Krugman's disdain for easy money (artificial liquidity). After all, isn't that really what fed spending is?

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:42AM

Ottovbvs -- you are precisely, and completely right. The problem is that the party faithful have descended into the realm of belief without a modicum of reason. Furthermore, they are pushing even further by promoting candidates such as Palin who lacks the knowledge and intellectual curiosity for any national office. Since we do not adhere to pure ideology, we are obviously "RINO's".

The effect of this anti-intellectual approach to governance is the dumbing down of the Republican party. Furthermore, the number of registered Republicans is now lower than at any time in recent history and the party is coalescing into a southern, white party.

As with most initiatives, we see the effects of unintended consequences - namely that the efforts of right wing ideologues are making the country less conservative, rather than more conservative.

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:49AM

Trotter, your mistake is that you believe you can separate spending and tax cuts. If there is anything we've learned over all administrations, is that you cannot separate the two. To do so is pure fantasy. Why? Because in our political system, the only way to get reelected is to spend for your constituency. It is the "have it all" mentality.

What, I believe, the Reagan and Bush2 administrations clearly proved was that even if you believe in tax cuts, you cannot cut spending. Why? Because 53% of the spending is in social security and medicare, 10% is in interest, and 20% is in military. To cut the budget significantly, you must cut social security and medicare. How many votes will you get if you do that?

So, in our system of government, significant spending cuts are virtually impossible to achieve.

Tim| 1.14.09 @ 10:50AM

Speaking of the past.
Interesting how the market is tanking today shortly after news came out that some Dem and Rep senators are balking at giving the Gov more billions to spend without a solid plan.

Well wouldn't it be grand if these politicians developed a back bone and just let the darn thing fall to its natural level instead of being scared into forking over more Billions to big daddy in DC?

stmichrick| 1.14.09 @ 10:57AM

I see that Bob here continues to misstate the results of the JFK, Reagan and Bush2 tax cuts.

SPENDING; Bob!

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 11:18AM

No, stmichrick, it is you and the other ideologues who don't understand that if Reagan and Bush2 couldn't reduce spending, that it really is fantasy to believe it can be reduced.

Let me explain my CONSERVATIVE stance on this. The reason it cannot be reduced is because of our electoral system and the need of incumbents to spend. To get reelected, you want to decrease taxes and maintain spending. Because of our form of government, spending and taxes are inextricably linked.

The only way to effect spending decreases is to tie them together. Right now, there is no pain to voters -- lower taxes and more government spending? Great.....

The theory has always been if you reduce taxes you'll force spending cuts. This is just not true as we have seen. So instead of backing tax cuts, conservatives should be supporting balanced budgets. If our elected representatives want to increase spending, the voters need to feel the pain. If they don't, we'll never get spending cuts.

This is what the conservative philosophy should be. It has a chance of working unlike your pedestrian view of economics. You should review the following graphs:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=indu

Then come to your own conclusions based on facts rather than hyperbole.

Stan Redmond| 1.14.09 @ 11:51AM

The truly scary part of Obama and his followers is their STRONG belief that ONLY government can fix this problem. Obama and Bush are throwing out "trillions" as if any of that money exists. Only in politics can you completely and utterly destroy something then get rehired to fix it.

wbindner| 1.14.09 @ 12:07PM

Great article, spelled it all out My problem is with the Republicans they should know better. Why did Bush start this giveaway. Our money is going to be worthless when this mess is over

aware| 1.14.09 @ 1:35PM

Bob, a component you don't mention is that total tax receipts actually increased with these tax cuts, to the point of a record just last year. I agree about spending because it is THE indicator of the size and scope of an out of control Federal government.
For me, even if it's only me, THE issue is freedom. There is no way freedom can exist under a State this powerful, that takes this much money, and exercises this much control. Of course freedom requires an acceptance of risks so it's not to popular today.
I have explained before that State spending does not create any new wealth but only "reallocates" existing money, so I won't go into that again.
As far as who is or isn't a "conservative" so many who aren't said they are that apparently you can even expand the Fed and still call yourself a conservative. Or basically nationalize vast segments of the free market, ditto.
The obvious answer is a return of the Constitutional limits to the Federal government but like your tax as you spend plan it would involve to much pain so it won't happen.
So the spending will get bigger, the State will get bigger and our only hope is that it finally collapses of its own bloated weight. The "voters" have gotten used to getting what they want on somebody else's dime.

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 2:09PM

Aware, I encourage you and others to actually look at the facts before you post. I always look at graphs because they include all data points. Here's a graph of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP (to adjust for inflation):

http://www.urban.org/publications/1000556.html

You will see that total tax receipts also grew dramatically under Clinton. Lots of people make the direct connection between tax rates and tax receipts, but if you look at a chart of GDP, you'll see that a significant component of tax receipts is how well business is doing. Tax receipts are also well aligned with economic bubbles when people spend much more than they have.

The bottom line is that the simplistic argument that tax receipts indicate the effect of tax rates is not explanatory of the data. I wish it were as simple as ideologues make it out to be.

Allen Bunch| 1.14.09 @ 3:11PM

This article and author are just more rich mans tripe. It never ceases to amaze me how rich people continue to try to destroy the very principles that made them rich. Without a well paid workforce (read that as organized labor) our companies and consequently our economy cannot prosper. When young people can take their choice of several jobs and reasonably expect to work there until retirement, that is when our economy will return to prosperity. So called economists like Pete and the much revered Reagan have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

Lu Dumak| 1.14.09 @ 3:14PM

Check out Article one section on & 8. Put the blame were it belongs.
We really do not have true Capitalism. Go to www.TheObjectiveStandard.com & read Capitalism & the Moral High Ground. It is something to think about even if you don't agree 100%. Goverment creates more problems than it solves and than creates even more problems when it tries to correct the problems it makes in the first place. The only job of the goverment is to keep us safe from outside invaders & crooks and crimanls inside and let us live our lives and respect other people to live their lives as they wish.

RICH| 1.14.09 @ 3:15PM

Sorry Bobbo, it was the spending, is the spending that has caused the problems. Yes you can seperate the two, specially when you see revenues increase and they did under W and Reagan. So if revenues go up with tax cuts then what is the problem with the budget? I think I got it, the congress took increased revenues as a green light to increase spending. I always love how the left keep using the same talking points time and time again that the right is just stupid. If you do not agree with the left you must be stupid. They called Eisenhower stupid, they called Reagan stupid, they called W stupid but time and again those guys got elected not once but twice. Bottom line is the left has never trusted the American people to be the deciders of how their money is spent. They have always believed they were smarter and could do better for you then you could do for yourself. That has been the battle line between republicans and dems forever. The dems never believed in personal responsibility.

Ryan| 1.14.09 @ 3:29PM

This argument is flawed from the beginning: "across the board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, starting and expanding businesses, job creation, entrepreneurship, and work" Reagan raised taxes 6 of his 8 years in office. 1982: Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. 1983: Raised social security tax rate. 1984: Deficit Reduction Act -raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. 1985: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act raised taxes. 1986: Tax Reform Act - net tax increase in its first two years. 1987: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - raised taxes yet again. Might want to rethink this argument on many levels, starting with reductions in tax rates.

Alan brooks| 1.14.09 @ 3:34PM

Bob neglects to mention the peace divident that Reagan's foreign policy helped provide us with.
The peace divident was incalculable. Another year or so and America too would have been bankrupt.
if Reagan's adminin. didnt bring about the demise of the Warsaw Pact then they did accelerate it.

Alan Brooks| 1.14.09 @ 3:35PM

dividend, not divident,
sorry, publik skool upbringing.

but it did make a dent.

The Deuce| 1.14.09 @ 4:05PM

Bob:
So instead of backing tax cuts, conservatives should be supporting balanced budgets. If our elected representatives want to increase spending, the voters need to feel the pain. If they don't, we'll never get spending cuts.

So, this is Bob's logic:
1) Conservatives shouldn't bother trying to cut spending directly, because lowering spending would do away with popular government hand-outs, which would make them unelectable.

2) Instead, conservatives should give up on lowering spending, and just focus on raising taxes through the roof in order to balance the budget and "make the people hurt". THAT strategy will make them far more electable than the other one.

Your an effing genius, Bob.

Todd| 1.14.09 @ 4:16PM

Somehow I knew Bob would all over this article pontificating the need for pragmatism and the anti-intellectualism of Republicans and not actually saying anything about the article written and taking it on its merits. Nothing about the stupidity of Obama's stimulus plan, you are a big phony Bob and quit calling yourself a fiscal conservative. You use the exact language Obama and his co-horts use saying they will be pragmatic and non-ideological and use what works which is all bullcrap and propaganda. They reject supply side economics and Friedman theories not based on what works but based on ideology and worship on the altar of Keynesism and rapidly increasing government spending.

It is time for the Republicans to stand up for true Conservative principles that made this country great and fight all these disastrous economic policies that will greatly increase our debts and bring us Carterese double digit inflation in a few years. Maybe there is not much we can do to stop some of this but there is no excuse not to oppose it in everyway possible. Let the blame fall on Obama and the Dems for the disaster that will result from these policies and get Jindal ready for 2012.

Todd| 1.14.09 @ 4:25PM

Great plan you got there Allen Bunch, lets follow the GM model because that has sure worked well. Lets pay workers without regard for the bottom line or competition and when it fails, the government can just bail them out. Reagan sure killed that golden egg we had under Carter right? Your ignorance is astounding but not surprising, I sure you were one of those zombie like YES WE CAN chanters found at the Obama rallies.

aware| 1.14.09 @ 4:33PM

But Bob, you do not take into account all the other ways that the State takes in money, such as fees, fines, tariffs( yes they still exist), etc. My point is that with the growth of government comes more ways to "tax" assets. This allows the hiding of how it is achieved.
The real essence of our dilemma is not taxes but the power that the central government wields.
Your problem is that you actually expect the State to reform itself. The State doesn't reform it consolidates.

Chredon| 1.14.09 @ 5:41PM

Aware: Yes, tax receipts last year were the highest ever. That is in no way related to the Bush tax cuts. Historically, when all tax rates are left the same, receipts go up 2-3% every year. That's just the effect of the expansion of the population, more people in the work force, etc. It's got nothing to do with tax rates.

When Bush lowered taxes, receipts fell. Over the following 4-5 years, the general 2-3% increase finally caught up with the loss, resulting in receipts that exceeded the receipts at the time of the cut. But had there been no cut, receipts would be even higher today, just based on the 2-3% growth rate.

For a tax cut to actually increase revenues, we would have to see an increase in the RATE OF GROWTH of tax receipts after the cut. That has never happened, not even under Reagan. Desipte the deep cuts he made, receipts initially fell, then began growing at 2-3% per year, just like they always do.

And now, the real trick question - if lower taxes make a stronger economy, why are we now, with the lowest taxes we've had since 1945, suffering under the worst economy we've had since 1945? Your argument makes no sense in light of the facts on the ground - and my explanation above should tell you why.

Chredon| 1.14.09 @ 5:51PM

"Obama is actually more like Woodrow Wilson, another overhyped Democratic President whose policies ultimately led to disaster."

Jerry, you may not be aware of this, but Obama's not actually been sworn in yet. You speak of his legacy in the past tense, as though his administration were over and proven disasterous. I think it might be a good idea to at least let the man be sworn in before you start looking back on the failures of his leadership.

Chredon| 1.14.09 @ 6:43PM

Chredon, your analysis is pathetically weak. Receipts just do not go up 2-3% per year statically, there are many variables involved depending on the state of the economy. It is true that initially the tax cuts by Reagan and Bush caused receipts to go down because they were instituted in recession periods but once the economy rebounded and supply side economics kicked in, the receipts picked up rather dramatically. If you care to educate yourself on the matter, you can study these charts and maybe you might learn something.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R1-Current-Federal-Tax-Receipts-Near.html

This will undoubtedly not change your mind being a tax and spend liberal that you are, you will always oppose tax cuts whatever the result is. You favor redistributive government like a true socialist like your hero Obama. Let us see what happens in 4 years time but the results of Obama being President will not be pretty unless you favor socialism and power of the State.

Todd| 1.14.09 @ 6:46PM

I mistakenly put Chredon's name in the last post

Knowledge is KING| 1.14.09 @ 8:05PM

Intellegent thinking, when there is debt you try to cut back and banance the budget. The first time here is the Super Power going against logical thinking.

Their thinking is use a problem to solve a problem. Hello folks it's mad, it has never worked before and never will you have been had.

It's like saying I owe 50.000, to solve the problem I'll borrow another 50.000, now you owe 100.000 plus interest.

America is on track to hell, with no return ticket. The game is up the party has been over for the last 10 years. The rich has bailed themselves out, and left the rest to fight for it.

The Banks has now got their money back owed to them by the people in credit, paid for by Taxes. What happens to the rest of America who really cares, only the people still indebt.

The government still think they have an economy, where is it? forgot it's all in the American dream, the fantasy world that drove the American economy into the dark ages back in the STONE AGE, well done folks.

Americans has been too busy trying to kill every one on planet earth, and forgot that the bullets has to be paid for, and the bombs. The only people who gets free bullets and bombs is Israel, the Joke is on you baby.

Kelly Patrick| 1.14.09 @ 10:28PM

Helloooooo! Where have the commenters on this site been living (and have they read a single newspaper--of any partisan bent--in the last 2 years). The PROBLEM is deregulation--Or at least, excesses in deregulation. And, if cutting taxes were the answer to stimulating the economy, we should be in a gilded age right now--Because Shrubya didn't do anything EXCEPT cut taxes, yet ran the fiscal deficit (and the overall economy) into the ground. And, really--Do you want to talk about controlling government spending? Reagan expanded it, Bush I expanded it, Bush II expanded it--The ONLY president in the last 28 years to reign spending in was Clinton! Helloooooooo! Helloooooooooooooo!

Alan Brooks| 1.15.09 @ 12:50AM

yeah we know about clinton. his finally was a balanced budget but Gingrich Congress imput helped.

and the Cold War peace dividend.

victor gonzales| 1.15.09 @ 1:03AM

We indeed will all have to give something for the greater good.

The reality is though that we will all have to suffer for a while while all the new generation of idiots learns that liberal big government policy is disasterous to growth and does nothing but mask smptoms while the problem grows.

The "greater good" will be that our new generation of voters will realize how stupid these ideas are and vote republican in the future. A large part of the voting population has to LEARN why Obama is an idiot, and they will.

The other "greater good" is that republicans will be able to run on traditional conservative ideas and pass them into law in the future once this new generation knows the danger of moderate and liberal government.

Without Carter Reagaan would have never happened.

Derek W| 1.15.09 @ 1:59AM

Poor Jimmy Carter. He was handed over a Country decimated by Vietnam, Watergate and a hapless Ford Administration and gets to take the blame for it all since he was a Dem.
The Economy is in shambles right now thanks to Mr. Laffer and Voodoo economics. Reagan got the economy going by borrowing and handing out billions to defense contractors whose weapons, like star wars, never even came to light. By the end of the Reagan years the debt had piled up higher than ever before in history, S&L;´s were dropping like flies due to deregulation and we were headed right for a nasty little recession which Bush1 got blamed for.
As for your article; tax cuts are always nice and if you listened to Obama at all during his campaign he plans to lower taxes as much as possible. As for regulating drilling if you haven´t noticed oil is way down and dropping so that makes your point moot. Government spending will come under control now that the Republican free spenders have been kicked out of Congress. Monetary policy that keeps inflation in check is a no brainer.
What was the point of this article again???

aware| 1.15.09 @ 6:21AM

Chredon...you agree about the receipts and then pass right over any explanation for it. My position hasn't anything to do with tax rates because it is a straw man. You, like Bob, should spend less time in economic charts and more time with the founding documents of this country.
You have the role of government as a given in all your calculations irregardless of the Constitution, as though that was of no importance. Money comes and goes but what about freedom?
You are talking nickels and dimes and I am talking about liberty. You talk about how to "better manage" the State's role in the Republic and I'm telling you that it's outside the legal parameters set by the Constitution. You want more efficient wine and circuses and I say the State has no business in the wine and circus game.

Bob| 1.15.09 @ 9:10AM

I'm afraid many of you don't understand human psychology. Let me state clearly, I am for both lower taxes and lower spending. However, the theory that lower taxes will lead to lower spending has never worked -- not even close. Why? Because there has been no pain for lowering taxes and raising spending and putting off the pain for our children. If I told you that you could make less money but buy more and not have to pay for your excesses, you would do it. No pain. However, if I tell you that you can spend, but you will have to pay for it, it might cause you to spend less.

LOWER TAXES HAVE NOT WORKED. WE NEED LOWER SPENDING. THE ONLY WAY TO GET LOWER SPENDING IS TO FORCE THE PEOPLE TO PAY FOR THE SPENDING WE HAVE. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, MIGHT THEY BE WILLING TO MAKE THE TOUGH DECISIONS OF WHAT SHOULD BE CUT OUT OF THE BUDGET. NO PAIN -- NO GAIN.

Mark A. Sadowski| 1.15.09 @ 9:45AM

When Peter Ferrara isn't busy taking bribes from Jack Abramoff he is dispensing advice on a subject he knows nothing about: economics.

A great majority of economists support the incoming administration's plan for a stimulus. In November 387 economists signed a letter urging immediate action on a large stimulus including Nobel laureates George Akerloff, Robert Solow and George Stiglitz:

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/Economists_letter_2008_11_19.pdf

To date, only 34 economists have signed John Boehner's letter opposing a stimulus. The list contains the usual suspects (and no Nobel laureates):

http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/stimulusskeptics.pdf

A survey of 142 economists who were members of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) was commissioned last fall by the Economist magazine before the election and found that 80% thought that Obama had a better grasp of economics and the same percent thought he would pick a better economic team:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127

Another survey of 523 economists who were members of the American Economic Association AEA) commissioned last fall found that 66% were planning to vote for Obama and most thought he would do a better job on a variety of economic issues:

http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/ppt/Draft-report--9-3-08.ppt

And lest you think the surveys were biased towards the Democratic party, that is because many surveys in the past have found economists register as Democratic over Republican by about three to one. This no doubt is due to the fact the economic policies that they advocate are more likely to be supported by Democratic politicians.

Is there empirical reason to think that these Democratic style economic policies would be more successful than Republican? Of course, here's a nice chart summarizing the relative economic performance of U.S. presidents since 1944:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/01/12/GR2009011200354.html

The economic failures of Bush's supply side and deregulatory ideology are astonishing compared to the record of history. Time to turn the page.

Bob| 1.15.09 @ 10:55AM

Mark, the reason Ferrara and other ideologues refuse to take an objective and factual view of economics and related economic history is that their base, heavy in social conservatives, eschew intelligent discussions with real data. They hold on to the myth of Reaganomics and create boogeymen as political "enemies" of conservatives.

The irony of this, is that at this time in our history we need a much more conservative approach to economics -- one steeped in facts and analysis that limits the role of government and reduces spending. By being so anti-intellectual in their approach, in fact, they are hurting the case of conservatism by letting big government supporters take the more logical and historically correct approach.

Social conservatives WANT the ideologists to be correct so that Democrats, who have differing views on abortion and gay marriage, will lose. This just makes them look less educated and less responsible.

stmichrick| 1.15.09 @ 11:57AM

Bob

As you also know, balanced budgets can't last. The ability to spend is the lever of power and that's what politicians want and will keep.

The congressional culture has to change, to where opposition to pet projects and unlimited entitlements is heralded and applauded.

Right, this means the defeat of liberalism and 'moderatism' (as opposed to 'moderation').

Leadership who can criticize concepts rather than labels or individuals and sell traditional constitutional values is our only hope.

Bob| 1.15.09 @ 12:31PM

Stmichrick, we agree on the problem and on the killer of big government. However, I cannot see how the culture of Congress will change on either side of the isle as long as they don't pay a price for their combination of low taxes and high spending. As with the excesses of Wall Street, only regulation, unfortunately, can stop it by demanding balanced budgets. Then, voters can have a real choice because they will be told who will cut what in the budget. They must address social security and medicare as that is 53% of the budget. Furthermore, interest will grow from the current 8% to 12% in two years or so. Remember that things like the Iraq war was not even budgeted.

Here's the dilemma. Only conservatives can make the argument for reduced spending -- but because they chose the path of anti-intellectualism, they can't make non-ideological, pragmatic, recommendations. Without Reagan and Palin hero worship, they can't get elected by social conservatives. Hence, there is no one who can stop this mess. Believe it or not, Obama will most likely be a better economic steward than the current crop of Republicans -- and that is a shame.

Mark A. Sadowski| 1.15.09 @ 9:01PM

Bob,

Give in to the dark side (just kidding , kind of sorta). The Republican party is in the wilderness, probably for several years, if not for several decades. The country needs solid public policy to find our way foreward. The key question is how do we most efficiently accomplish our national goals. The Republicans have no answers, and moreover, they are not even interested in asking the most important questions.

ruth| 1.16.09 @ 1:54AM

God we are in trouble with these liberal clowns in office. It's going to be a rocky road.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.16.09 @ 1:56PM

I see several comments about the Clinton economy. Don't forget that Clinton got the benefit of the first tech wave. Also don't forget that Clinton spent almost 2 trillion in 8 years. More then all Presidents who went before.

butch ferrell| 1.16.09 @ 1:58PM

In killing inflation Paul Volker is a convenient player to omit.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.17.09 @ 11:16AM

Someone mentioned that 387 economists have signed onto the Obama stimulus plan. If they have, they must be idiots, because the plan hasn't been released for finalized yet. Just like liberals to sign onto a blank check.

Jeff Stone| 1.17.09 @ 2:34PM

Yes We Can
Change We Can Believe In

This Century's "Happy Days Are Here Again"

FDR's wartime leadership ? Hug Uncle Joe ( I was being polite) and do whatever he says ? That was leadership ?

If so, then, President Obama may be the second coming of FDR. Unfortunately this time it is Uncle Moe.

The whole birth certificate thing is a red-herring. Very few doubt he was born in Hawai'i. The real question is was he subject to the laws of The United States ? One of his parents was a citizen of The British Empire. But, as long as the topic is birth certificate or was he born in The US, the real question is avoided.

Every President has had special circumstances that he, as well as the Congress, had to work through. The one consistent thing throughout them all is high government spending does make prosperity in and of itself.

Michele San Pietro| 1.18.09 @ 6:00PM

I think it ridiculous to compare the current situation with the crisis of 1930s, that was a real crisis that helped monsters like Hitler rise to power. Obama isn't Clinton, I trust he may commit mistakes, but will not do anything absurd.

Pingback| 3.4.09 @ 2:04PM

Lose Weight Program - Stuck in the shadows - Philadelphia Daily News « Lose Weight Pr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…it doesn’t seem to matter what type of diet plan you choose. What really matters is that you just eat less. A study in the Feb. 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine Obama’s Race to the Past - Spectator.org Barack Obama explained the principles behind his economic stimulus package last Sunday on ABC’s This Week with former Clinton Administration official George Stephanopoulos. Obama…

kabin| 6.15.09 @ 7:52AM

thanks...
Kabin
Konteyner

sex| 7.3.09 @ 8:50AM

AV|AV女優|自慰器|自慰器

視訊|影音視訊聊天室|視訊交友|

網頁設計|網頁設計公司|最新消息|訪客留言|網站導覽

The American Spectator

Comments

Jason| 1.14.09 @ 6:37AM

Robert Rosencrans| 1.14.09 @ 7:15AM

Eric| 1.14.09 @ 7:46AM

Deborah| 1.14.09 @ 7:54AM

country boy| 1.14.09 @ 8:31AM

jerryofva| 1.14.09 @ 8:40AM

Trotter| 1.14.09 @ 8:46AM

Joan Wilder| 1.14.09 @ 9:33AM

Tim| 1.14.09 @ 10:11AM

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:13AM

ottovbvs| 1.14.09 @ 10:24AM

Trotter| 1.14.09 @ 10:33AM

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:42AM

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 10:49AM

Tim| 1.14.09 @ 10:50AM

stmichrick| 1.14.09 @ 10:57AM

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 11:18AM

Stan Redmond| 1.14.09 @ 11:51AM

wbindner| 1.14.09 @ 12:07PM

aware| 1.14.09 @ 1:35PM

Bob| 1.14.09 @ 2:09PM

Allen Bunch| 1.14.09 @ 3:11PM

Lu Dumak| 1.14.09 @ 3:14PM

RICH| 1.14.09 @ 3:15PM

Ryan| 1.14.09 @ 3:29PM

Alan brooks| 1.14.09 @ 3:34PM

Alan Brooks| 1.14.09 @ 3:35PM

The Deuce| 1.14.09 @ 4:05PM

Todd| 1.14.09 @ 4:16PM

Todd| 1.14.09 @ 4:25PM

aware| 1.14.09 @ 4:33PM

Chredon| 1.14.09 @ 5:41PM

Chredon| 1.14.09 @ 5:51PM

Chredon| 1.14.09 @ 6:43PM

Todd| 1.14.09 @ 6:46PM

Knowledge is KING| 1.14.09 @ 8:05PM

Kelly Patrick| 1.14.09 @ 10:28PM

Alan Brooks| 1.15.09 @ 12:50AM

victor gonzales| 1.15.09 @ 1:03AM

Derek W| 1.15.09 @ 1:59AM

aware| 1.15.09 @ 6:21AM

Bob| 1.15.09 @ 9:10AM

Mark A. Sadowski| 1.15.09 @ 9:45AM

Bob| 1.15.09 @ 10:55AM

stmichrick| 1.15.09 @ 11:57AM

Bob| 1.15.09 @ 12:31PM

Mark A. Sadowski| 1.15.09 @ 9:01PM

ruth| 1.16.09 @ 1:54AM

Robert Rosencrans| 1.16.09 @ 1:56PM

butch ferrell| 1.16.09 @ 1:58PM

Robert Rosencrans| 1.17.09 @ 11:16AM

Jeff Stone| 1.17.09 @ 2:34PM

Michele San Pietro| 1.18.09 @ 6:00PM

Pingback| 3.4.09 @ 2:04PM

kabin| 6.15.09 @ 7:52AM

sex| 7.3.09 @ 8:50AM

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

Iran in Turmoil

W. James Antle, III

Matthew Vadum

Doug Bandow

Matthew Vadum

W. James Antle, III

Philip Klein

Quin Hillyer

Philip Klein

Patrick O'Hannigan

Philip Klein

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Jeanne Marie Hoffman

George H. Wittman

Eric Peters

Reid Collins

AMSPEC NEWSLETTER