From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Date: 17 Aug 1992 21:58:25 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

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 following appears to be an evaluation of Clinton's plan, but spends
almost no time talking about that plan.  Instead it promotes, and
often innacurately, the Reaganomics mantra and the Bush bull-fact machine.

|> 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.

1) The federal debt grew at an alarming rate, although the year-to-year
deficit varied.  2) Selected, protected individuals benefited greatdly,
skewing the "economic growth" figures.  3) What growth there was occured
at the expense of basic structure, the absence of which led to the 
problems beginning during the BUSH presidency.  The problem with Bush
is that he didn't see it coming.

|> 	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.

Clinton is proposing a balanced economic agenda that will benefit all
americans, not just the few that already have a solid position at the 
beginning of his administration.  There is no question that by following
the Bush plan we can have even wealthier wealthy at the cost of an 
even poorer poor, a more militant dis-enfranchised, and a more incompetant
world economic factor.  I think we call that a 3rd world country.

|> 	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

Considering that the highest tax bracket dropped significantly, this 
demonstrates that the top 1 percent control a much greater share of
the wealth than they did in 1980.

|> 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.

As serious tax scholars know, there is no agreement on economic stategy
among scholars and economists.  Scholars and economists are thoreticians
and record keepers.  If the were forecasters, tax scholars and
economists would be the wealthiest people in the world.  Perot
had a history of success to base his "I know" statments upon.  And
he made mistakes.

|> 	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.

On the other hand, these programs may lead the a reduction in taxes, as
we remove millions of american from public support by making them
productive.

Also, manyh of those countries with mandated health care provide much
better care for much less money.  Frightening.

|> 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.

Whoops.  Clinton has not written down everyone of the possible places in
the government where money can be saved.  Hell, Bush hasn't saved a penny
in 4  years.

|> 	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.

A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done on putting cyanide in breakfast
cereal.  Having regulations against it may cost more than the lives
that are saved are worth.

The environment is very similar to the cold war.  As the story goes,
the American President and the Russion Premier are standing in a 
basement filled with gasoline up to the waists.  One has 100 matches,
the other has 200 matches.  Who is winning?

If we destroy the environment, it won't matter how much money we save.

|> 	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.
|> 
At least were all entitled to have, and vote, our opinions.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3560 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4397