From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.correct
Subject: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Summary: Richard Rahn and Theodore Suranyi-Unger, Jr.
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:36:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

[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?
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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?
	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.
	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.
	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.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh