From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:23:14 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <18p93eINNoov@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <21489@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>Except that you didn't count Carter's last "year" - 1982.
>
>Reagan's 1983 unemploymet was the same as his 82:
>ALSO 9.5 %. Basically you just blame
>Carter for every year possible. He lost in November 1980. By 1983 
>Reagan should be taking the blame.

An economy does not turn on a dime.  You cannot pass laws cutting taxes,
etc. and expect every company in America to throw open its doors and
start hiring by the droves.  It takes months for the money to reach the
consumers pockets, then they have to spend it, then the companies have
to run down their inventories, then they have to start re-hiring the
workers, then those workers have to spend their earnings and create
still more jobs.  This is a very SLOW process.

And yes, Reagan had high unemployment at the start of his term.  But the
metric you are using is simply the wrong yardstick.  You don't look at
year <X> and say "well, it was bad in year <X>".  You look at years <X>,
<X+1>, and so on.  By the mid-80's, after several years of Reagan, the
economy was booming.  By the end of Reagan's second term, the economy was
in great shape, yuppies were still aplenty, and employment outlooks were
great.  Contrast that to January, 1981 when Reagan took office.  The
economy was in the ditch, things were looking worse, etc.  Lo and behold,
things GOT worse.

>>Again, Reagan's "High" is 1982.  Sorry, but bills aren't passed through
>>Congress and implemented in zero time.  1982 still belongs to Carter.
>>As for taking an average, that's bunk.  If someone takes a perfectly
>>sound economy and after the end of 4 years turns it into shit (which is
>>what Carter did), you don't give him credit for 3 years of good times.
>
>And where would George Bush be under this rule? Heh heh.

The economy is in a mild recovery.  George Bush is paying for the gains
that were made during the '80s.  Is it his "fault"?  Yes.  Was it all
that avoidable?  No.  The problem with economic cycles is that, well,
they are cyclic.  If you have too much growth in one period, you pay for
it in another.  What Reagan SHOULD have done by the middle of his second
term was 1). put a hard freeze on the budget 2). start raising the tax
rate.  This would have moderated growth and reduced the deficit.  The
moderation of economic growth would have spared us some of the pain of
the current recession, and the lowered deficit would have ensured a
strong, solid recovery.  Reagan didn't do this because he is opposed to
tax increases.

Probably the most clever thing any politician could do is a tax surcharge
that is directly related to growth in the GDP.  This year, we have 2% GDP
growth.  The surcharge amount is 2%.  Last year when GDP declined, it would
have been a tax credit.  It would provide automatic tax cuts when the
economy declines and needs them, and automatic tax hikes when the economy
gets warmed up again.  Earmark 100% of the revenues generated towards
paying off the deficit, with Constitutional requirements that the rest of
the budget balance without use of the surcharge (or FICA), and we'd have a
solid plan for continued economic growth.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5065 alt.politics.clinton:4839