-
Wimps Versus Barbarians
May 21, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Looking Back — And Forward
May 15, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Lies About Libya
May 14, 2013 | 80 comments
-
Bouncing Ball Politics
May 8, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Words That Replace Thought
May 7, 2013 | 57 comments
The Public Policy
An Overdue Book
If only every voter had read Stephen Moore’s new opus before Election Day.
If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore’s new book, Who’s The Fairest of Them All?, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide.
The point here is not to say, “Where was Stephen Moore when we needed him?” A more apt question might be, “Where was the whole economics profession when we needed them?” Where were the media? For that matter, where were the Republicans?
Since Who’s The Fairest of Them All? was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year’s election. But this little gem of a book exposes, in plain language and with easily understood facts, the whole house of cards of assumptions, fallacies, and falsehoods which constitute the liberal vision of the economy.
Yet that vision triumphed on election day, thanks to misinformation that was artfully presented and seldom challenged. The title Who’s The Fairest of Them All? is an obvious response to liberals’ claim that their policies are aimed at creating “fairness” by, among other things, making sure that “the rich” pay their “fair share” of taxes. If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book.
A couple of graphs on pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about “tax cuts for the rich.” These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.
There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or are shipped overseas. At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output, and rising incomes. Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower. Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.
This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. That hard evidence is presented in clear and unmistakable terms in Who’s The Fairest of Us All?
Another surprising fact brought out in this book is that the Democrats and Republicans both took positions during the Kennedy administration that were the direct opposite of the positions they take today. As Stephen Moore points out, “the Republicans almost universally opposed and the Democrats almost universally favored” the cuts in tax rates that President Kennedy proposed.
Such Republican Senate stalwarts as Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole voted against reducing the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. Democratic Congressman Wilbur Mills led the charge for lower tax rates.
Unlike the Republicans today, John F. Kennedy had an answer when critics tried to portray his tax cut proposal as just a “tax cut for the rich.” President Kennedy argued that it was a tax cut for the economy, that changed incentives meant a faster growing economy and that “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
If Republicans today cannot seem to come up with their own answer when critics cry out “tax cuts for the rich,” maybe they can just go back and read John F. Kennedy’s answer.
A truly optimistic person might even hope that media pundits would go back and check out the facts before arguing as if the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise tax rates on “the rich.”
If they are afraid that they would be stigmatized as conservatives if they favored cuts in tax rates, they might take heart from the fact that not only John F. Kennedy, but even John Maynard Keynes as well, argued that cutting tax rates could increase tax revenues and thereby help reduce the deficit.
Because so few people bother to check the facts, Barack Obama can get away with statements about how “tax cuts for the rich” have “cost” the government money that now needs to be recouped. Such statements not only promote class warfare, to Obama’s benefit on election day, they also distract attention from his own runaway spending behind unprecedented trillion dollar deficits.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM.
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Appleby| 11.28.12 @ 6:51AM
My liberal sister waves her hand and says, "Oh, rich people and business people always whine that this is going to destroy their business, but it never does." Or, as James Taggart (I think) said, "You'll think of something."
Stand back and let it crash. Make them eat the meal they have cooked and hope they choke on it.
Ted R.| 11.28.12 @ 10:11AM
If only you would stand back... you might get some of the credit of sensible policy. But you won't. We're going to have to pull the nuclear trigger...
Jacob McCandles| 11.28.12 @ 10:25AM
Stand back and let it crash? Why should republicans do that? Because the American people are no longer educated enough or interested enough to regard facts or history. They need to FEEL the effects of liberal policy. All of the facts are out there for anyone to see. Conservatives should collectively sit back and say, "we've talked until we are blue in the face, now we are going to let experience teach you."
The people in 1980 may have been just as ignorant as in 2012, but they knew it sucked waiting in line for their gas. Living high and borrowing have spoiled us.
Occam's Tool| 11.28.12 @ 4:26PM
The Liberals arranged for the endpoints on the Bush Tax rates. Let them eat it. ALL.
Trinacria| 11.29.12 @ 8:05PM
AMEN!
AMEN!
AMEN!
Alan Brooks | 11.28.12 @ 11:44AM
"If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore's new book, Who's The Fairest of Them All?, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide."
If everyone in America read the Bible, we'd all go to church. If Granny were a man, she'd be Grandpa. Sowell is becoming senescent.
effinayright| 11.28.12 @ 3:35PM
If everyone in America had read Alan Brooks' s many comments here, we'd all be as dumb as a bag of Portland cement.
Luckily, we didn't, and we're not.
spike59| 11.28.12 @ 4:28PM
if we all became dumb as a bag of Portland cement, we'd all be Progressives
JD| 11.28.12 @ 3:51PM
I've read some of his comments, and I'm not dumb as a bag of cement. I also know people who have read the Bible and do not go to church. Brooks' comment is a non-sequiter, and a poor analogy to Sowell's point.
JD| 11.28.12 @ 1:54PM
I have a younger brother (fortunately a strong conservative today) who was the same way in his teen years. A lazy boy and a poor academic, he mastered the art of avoiding chores by being so incompetent that people learned not to rely on him. After a particular catastrophe resulted from his apathy, he tried to console my mother by saying "don't worry, these things always work out."
What followed was a double-barreled assault from both my mother and me (I frequently had to pick up the slack for him, too): "Things work out because WE work them out! They don't just take care of themselves!"
He hasn't been the same since.
Occam's Tool| 11.28.12 @ 4:25PM
All of your sister's money should flow to you, Ms.A, and sheshould be dumpster diving.
Suzyqpie| 11.28.12 @ 6:59AM
Quoting the author , Dr. T Sowell, "How does allowing politicians to take more money from Americas most success in taxes to squander in ways that enhance their reelection prospects, make anything more "fair" for others?"
Biff| 11.28.12 @ 8:27PM
excellent point; which is why I enjoy reading Sowell's work. simple and succinct, it just makes sense to me.
Pecos Pete| 11.28.12 @ 8:09AM
Economics and facts don't matter any more. King O is all about class warfare. The Fascists are winning.
Ted R.| 11.28.12 @ 10:09AM
You voted for war when you voted for W. Now you are going to Reap.
Alan Brooks | 11.28.12 @ 11:45AM
there's an honest man.
Tom Kyba| 11.28.12 @ 12:59PM
There are few (read none) people on this planet that give a damn what a preening metrosexual like you considers an honest man.
Tom Kyba| 11.28.12 @ 1:00PM
Thank you for the incoherent non-sequiter babble. Your contribution humbles greater mankind.
Ronsch| 11.28.12 @ 4:48PM
Oh yes, balme Bush...That is just awesome...Check the Senate and House voting records for the incursions into the Middle East after 9/11...there was little opposition from the heroes of the left (i.e Demonrats.) So, in essence blame those morons too..
BTW, the economy has been wholly owned by NerObama and his Keystone Kop administration. This BS about how it would have been so much worse is partisan claptrap. Funneling millions of dollars into losing companies for the "green energy" fiasco is obscene.
CJW| 11.28.12 @ 4:55PM
Ted
The Iraq and Afghan wars were approved by Congress with the Dems, especially Mrs Bubba, yes.
Obama escalated the war in Afghan, and at the same time announced a date for withdrawal, thus ensuring Americans will die for no reason since we are surrendering at a slow pace.
Why do you not criticize Obama's Afghan war?
spike59| 11.29.12 @ 5:46AM
"Why do you not criticize Obama's Afghan war?"
------------------------------------------------------
you're joking, right? if their Obamessiah was to rape and strangle a 3 yr old girl in the Rose Garden on live TV, fecal nuggets like Ted would applaud it as 'expressing freely his reproductive choice', and the only thing the MSM would argue about would be how many 'style points' to award him
Von Mises Jr| 11.28.12 @ 9:13AM
John F Kennedy was fighting the USSR as they were installing missiles in Cuba and while it turned out badly, at the Bay of Pigs.
Today, not only are the Democrats fascist and communist; but the Republican Establishment are Leviathan, bureaucratic Statist.
All you need to do is read Chris Christie's Agenda21 Executive Order AKA "Development and Redevelopment Draft Plan" and you can see how our "enlightened" Dear Leaders in the Republican Party love the State and power, not the Constitution.
Not only is this not your father's Democrat Party, but this is not our father's Republican Party either. At least not in DC or the Blue States.
JmsA| 11.28.12 @ 3:14PM
VMJr, did you know that more than fifty Soviet ships carrying who knows what evaded Kennedy's blockade of Cuba? (US National Security Archive) How about the fact the Soviets also planned to leave one-hundred nuclear missiles in Cuba, as well as train the Cubans to use them, until Anastas Mikoyan, the USSR's envoy to Cuba recommended they'd be taken all back following his meeting with Castro, and the latter's erratic behavior therein?
Kennedy also bungled the Bay of Pigs invasion, not by not allowing U.S. forces to intervene, but by curtailing the exiles' preemptive attacks against Castro's air forces, which promptly sunk the brigade's supply and reinforcement ships. Despite such, the managed to fight on while outnumbered by more than 50 to 1 with only light weapons. Following their defeat, Kennedy got an approval rating from the American people of over 80%, as he told the rapt media: Victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan. His administration then proceeded crassly scheme escalating American involvement in Viet-Nam, culminating in the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, lest the democrats be blamed for allowing another country to fall under the sphere of communism. In the meantime, Castro consolidated his power in Cuba, and proceeded to spread socialism throughout Latin America, as well as the rest of the world, including Africa.
Kwan| 11.28.12 @ 10:11AM
Obama and the Commiecrats know that reducing taxes increases remittances to the treasury due to increased economic activity. Their real agenda is to demonize free enterprise/capitalism so that the dopes, morons, and saps that populate the "Occupy Wall Street" menagerie can rise up and demand that the government nationalize the economy in order to promote fairness and social justice.
Pecos Pete| 11.28.12 @ 11:45AM
Kwan: Exactly!
OregonBuzz| 11.28.12 @ 10:26AM
I would also recommend "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by Edward Griffin. It' s a real eye opener.
Cobalt| 11.28.12 @ 10:55AM
Rattlesnakes weren't the only kind of snakes on Jekyll Island.
By law stockholders of the 12 regional branches of the Federal Reserve Bank are entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock.
Jim Adcox| 11.28.12 @ 11:06AM
How much of my money does the government want? How much will they take? How much can they take? How will I provide for myself and my family, apart from the government teat, if the answer to the above questions is "All of it? Just wondering if these questions are asked this directly to any government "revenooer"?
spike59| 11.28.12 @ 4:30PM
"How much of my money does the government want? How much will they take? How much can they take?"
-----------------------------
how much have you got? there's your answer
pigdog| 11.28.12 @ 12:00PM
"If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore's new book, Who's The Fairest of Them All?, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide."
Professor Sowell assumes the electorate knows how to read--a gratuitous assumption with regard to the
" 'BAMA PHONE!" cohort.
Petronius| 11.28.12 @ 1:08PM
Not only is America sinking, but the decks are awash. The Captain has ordered his crew to smash all the life boats. And the idiots in steerage are delighted that the First Class passengers are going to drown with them even though the esteemed plutocrat Warren Buffet stands on the beach and watches us all going down for the last time.
Frosty| 11.28.12 @ 3:27PM
I have loved reading Thomas Sowell since I can remember. The reality is that logical arguments and common sense do nothing to change the minds of liberals. So even if we sat all of the 47% down and "showed them the graphs on pages 104 and 108", it would make no difference. Arguments haven't worked. Only action will work. The progressive giveaway sweepstakes doesn't work without our money. Each individual needs to do whatever he/she can to limit the amount of our money they can get their grubby governmental hands on. And we each need to make sure that every 47%er feels the brunt of their unwillingness to provide for themselves.
Occam's Tool| 11.28.12 @ 4:29PM
Thomas, please run for POTUS next time.
KennesawJack| 11.28.12 @ 8:46PM
The left would immediately crown him "Uncle Thomas".
Johnimo| 11.28.12 @ 11:19PM
To which we'd reply, "So, well?"
spike59| 11.29.12 @ 5:42AM
"The left would immediately crown him "Uncle Thomas"."
---------------------------------------
are you kidding? "Uncle Thomas" is one of the MILDER things the Left has been calling him for years; one of the most common ones has been 'house ni@@er'
Plubius| 11.28.12 @ 8:58PM
The majority who are winning elections for socialism do not want to think about ecomomics. They are constently lied to by the media. They are tired of believing something to later find that it is not true. Everyone lies, so Obama is like everyone and he is black.
Johnimo| 11.28.12 @ 11:18PM
Tom, You are the greatest! Keep up the good work ... I'm going to get the book tomorrow.
aware| 11.29.12 @ 6:28AM
Do any of you chowderheads actually think through this kind of "logic"? If the "rich" end up paying MORE after "tax cuts" how does that equal more money in the private sector? Why would they want such a thing?
And if "government"(actually a bandit gang of privilege holders) ends up with MORE "revenue"(actually plundered booty from the powerless) after "tax cuts" how do you ever get "limited government"(now just one of those election promises that no one intends to fulfill)? You do realize you are arguing for more wealth in the hands of the political class, not YOURS, don't you?
Moore is another supply side snake oil salesman. A monetarist. A Statist. Like many "economists" he cannot comprehend that the world is now in uncharted waters. Coolidge nor Kennedy could not have even conceived the debt that decades of living way beyond our means has brought us. More than can ever be paid no matter what "tax" policy is.
The only question now is what form the default takes. That is the ONLY issue and it will dominate the lives of everyone, except the the bandits that have made it all possible. And even for them "The best laid plans of mice and men....".