From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Date: 18 Aug 1992 06:02:03 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

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.]

>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?

These questions aren't even that hard? Maybe the Washington Times
readership can't figure it out, but this net is read by mathematicians
and computer scientists!

>	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.

Refutation #1: A) 'Growth slowed down' is the fallacy of confusing a
function with its derivative. If crime = 100, 199, 297, 394 in
consecutive years, its growth is going down. Feel safer? However, this
is minor..... (B) Where do record high real wages come from? In most
interpretations, average wages have gone down. As to employment, that
too has been far from a record high. (C) The alleged fall of the deficit
(which I do not believe) is another confusion of f and f'. The
monstrously large deficits of the early Reagan years begin to saddle the
country with debt. It's like spending $10K on your Visa in 1983, 9K in
84, etc. By the end, you will be in deep voodoo. Moreover, the alleged
"growth" in your lifestyle will be taken away when you finally try to
pay off the debt. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!

>	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.

All that happened is that the Reagan debt finally caught up, plus the
S&L mess. That forced spending to rise, to pay for the accumulated
interest, and the S&L bailout. Despite their juxtaposition, the
sentences are non sequiturs. Offer an alternative suggestion on
balancing the 1990 budget! Silence: notice that none of these
conservatives ever DARE to post their balanced budget.
Bullies = cowards.

...
>	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.)

There is no evidence presented here (other than the belief of the
lickspittles writing and posting this drivel) that these taxes are
unfair (or have become more unfair) because the key datum: percentage
of earned income received by the top 1% (2%) has been deliberately 
omitted. Suppose they earn 95% of all the income in the United States
(not, of course, true)? Why would the tax structure presented here be
"unfair"? (Answer: because Republicans feel they should be exempt from
taxes.)

>	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?

Whatever the merits of Clinton's Health Care plan, it's worth noting
that more and more big (and small) businesses are complaining about
health care costs. On the other hand, uninsured persons have a large
societal cost. It'snot at all clear that mandated health care leaves
businesses in the US at a disadvantage. All of our major rivals have
some form of mandated health care......

The rest of the article was just the usual conservative argument that
the world is better polluted, but at least in didn't contain fraudulent
mathematics, like the above.

andy