From: bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo))
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:41:26 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <4618@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>[Richard Rahn is president of Novecon, an adjunct scholar at the Cato
>Institute and former chief economist of the US Chamber of Commerce.
>Theodore Suranyi-Unger, Jr., is an economist and senior advisor at
>Novecon. This editorial is taken from the Washington _Times_ from Fri
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Aug 14 1992.]          
                             Oh great... the MOONIE paper.
>
>THE PC CATECHISM OF CLINTONOMICS
>
>We are told that Gov. Bill Clinton is a very bright fellow. If you were
>given the following facts, how would you respond?
>	Fact #1: From 1983-1989, federal spending and taxing fell as a
>percentage of GNP, and the growth in government regulation slowed down.
>During that same period, the US experienced record peace time economic
>growth, the federal deficit fell in real terms,  and a record high
>percentage of the adult population had jobs at record high real wages.

Gee, if it's in the Washington Times, it *must* be true.

>	Fact #2: From 1990-1992, federal taxing and spending grew
>rapidly as a percentage of GNP and the growth in regulation sharply
>increased. During that same period the economy was stagnant, the deficit
>grew rapidly in real terms, and no new jobs were created.

Since they happened at the same time, they *must* be causally related...

>	Mr. Clinton responded to these facts by proposing an economic
>plan that would sharply increase taxes, government spending and
>regulation. You are probably thinking either Mr. Clinton is an economic
>dunce or he has another agenda. We suspect he has another agenda -- that
>of the "politically correct liberal." Look at the evidence.

I suspect thie writer is the one with another agenda.  I wonder why he
didn't call Clinton a card-carrying PC liberal?

>	The politically correct liberal has a set of beliefs that he or
>she views as so "right" that one is justified in ignoring empirical
>evidence that does not support, or contradicts, << commas mine >> the
>belief, and in using politically coercive or in some cases even police
>state tactics to enforce the PC dogma. This same intolerance of
>empirical evidence and other views has characterized ideological zealots
>throughout human history as illustrated by the fascism and Marxism of
>this century.

Why does this sound like the GOP?

>	The Clinton program proposes increasing the income tax rate on
>the top 2 percent of the taxpayers, in the name of tax fairness. High
>income earners already pay a greatly disproportionate share of the
>income tax both in absolute and real terms (e.g.: the top 1 percent now
>pay more than 24 percent of the total income tax, sharply up from 18% a
>decade earlier.) The empirical evidence shows that the government is
>unlikely to gather any additional revenue from income tax rates of more
>than approxiamately 30 %. High rates discourage people from working,
>saving, and investing, and keeping their energy and wealth in the United
>States, and encourage legal and illegal tax evaision. In sum, high tax
>rates reduce productive capital formation, economic growth and job
>creation. But note the Clinton rhetoric, "make the wealthiest Americans
>pay their fair share in taxes." Since they already do, the PC message is
>tax the successful, even if it hurts economic growth.

See last month of posts to alt.politics.clinton for refutation of this b.s.

>	Mr. Clinton has proposed five increases in corporate taxes. As
>serious tax scholars know, the corporate tax is passed to consumers in
>higher prices, to workers in lower wage growthh, and results in less new
>investment in productive plants and machinery. Again the PC solution is
>to punish success, not to create jobs and opportunity.

Well, it appears clear that corporate taxes don't dent, for instance,
executive salaries.

>	Also, Mr. Clinton has proposed a series of very costly mandates
>on American business, such as mandated worker training programs,
>mandated health care, etc. These mandates have the same effect as taxes.
>They increase the cost of doing business, which in turn increases
>prices, and reduces wages and productivity growth. Only a PC liberal
>would see merit in such destructive proposals and resent answering the
>following question: Why is it right to put additional responsibilities
>on one set of Americans -- employers -- who create jobs for their fellow
>citizens -- and not others?

Because in general the set of employees is getting screwed.

>	The good governor decries the deficit but proposes more spending
>increases than spending cuts. The lack of seriousness in his proposed
>spending cuts is amply illustrated by onne item. He proposed to save
>$20M by "ending the taxpayer subsidies for honey producers," but says
>nothing about eliminating the subsidies for the sugar, milk, peanut, and
>other agricultural commodity producers that add up to big bucks. If it
>is desirable to reduce agricultural subsidies, and it is, let's get them
>all. One can only assume that honey producers are politically incorrect
>(maybe many of them are Republicans) and peanuts farmers are politically
>correct. << Anything to help Jimmy Carter's popularity, right? :) >>
>Whatever the politics, it makes no political sense.

What about fiscal sense?

>	Ithe Clinton-Gore administration delivers Sen. Al Gore's PC
>environmentalism, we can expect extraordinary costly programs, mandates
>and restrictions, all without serious cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Gore
>and many in the establishment believe we are experiencing global
>warming, and we may be, but neither Mr. Gore nor anyone else knows for
>sure, not do they know whether global warming will be a net plus or
>minus. Why do many of the affluent go south? Would the world have more
>food if Finland were like California or vice versa? Again, questions the
>PC liberal doesn't like asked.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>	Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore have made it abundantly clear that they
>are PC liberals -- the catechism is more important than empirical
>evidence, economic growth and opportunity, and individual liberty. We
>have seen this future before, in no so far away places.

And this writer has made it abundantly clear that he's been brain-washed.

bobo
bowman@reed.edu