The Canard about 'Voodoo Economics' is Back as the Left Remembers Bush
Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell, and many other supposed journalists, repeatedly write about economics as if they know what they are talking about. Problem is, they repeatedly show how ignorant they are.
Of all the things she could possibly say about the late President George H.W. Bush as his funeral goes on, she compliments the man for calling President Reagan’s tax cuts “Voodoo Economics." It's absurd. President George H.W. Bush fully embraced the Reagan Revolution as his loyal vice president and his legacy of greatness is at least partly connected to Reagan's.
But Rampell is still stuck on the campaign rhetoric of 1980, where Reagan and Bush competed for the Republican candidacy and Bush used the term 'voodoo economics' to unseat Reagan, something the voters didn't buy. Bush was apparently willing to forget about that, as he embraced being Reagan's running mate. But Rampell talks of that fleeting moment as if it were the only immutable truth. In the following column, Rampell says that it is crazy and ridiculous for anyone to claim that you could increase tax revenue by cutting taxes:
But Bush was end-of-an-era in another crucial way. He might well be the last Republican leader to acknowledge the fundamental fraud of Republican fiscal policy: that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Bush was referring to supply-side policies that claimed tax cuts for the rich would unleash so much growth they would generate enough revenue to fund themselves.
Characterizing Reaganomics as “voodoo” was colorful, yes, but it wasn’t crazy. Of course it was ridiculous to claim you could increase tax revenue by cutting taxes.
How little she remembers. The fact is, Ronald Reagan inherited an economic disaster when he came into office in 1981. We had double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and double-digit unemployment.
When Reagan took office, he along with Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker worked to wring the double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates out of the economy. That required double-digit interest-rate hikes and for awhile, it was bitter medicine. But he also worked to wring big government out of the economy. By 1984, he cut the top income tax rate from the punishing 70% to 28%. In fiscal year 1983, federal revenues were $601 billion. By fiscal 1989, they were $991 billion. I would say that all the people who do not acknowledge that Reagan’s supply-side, (or more derisively, 'trickle down' or 'voodoo') economics worked are the crazy ones. If not the liars.
The Bush II tax-cuts-and-government revenue example is even more recent, and possibly an even better example of supply economics at work. Rampell should be aware of that, too. Bush II inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market. In fiscal 2000, the government collected $2.03 trillion in revenues. For three straight years, revenues dropped, and by FY 2003, they were down to $1.72 trillion. Bush got his substantial tax cuts for individuals passed in May 2003 and by FY 2004 revenues were rising again. By FY 2007 they were up to $2.55 trillion. Revenues were up around 50% in four short years because of the tax cuts allowing people to keep more of the money they earned.
Why won’t Rampell and other stenographers report the truth instead of Democrat talking points?
Scroll over to 2018, which is the first year since 2005 that the U.S economy is expected to grow 3% for the year. It is not a coincidence that the results from both years occurred after substantial tax cuts. One of the best things President Trump and the Republicans did was to make the corporate tax cuts permanent to take out the uncertainty. They would have also made the individual tax cuts permanent except for the lack of support from any Democrats as the media, almost in unison, took the Democrats' position. If the Congressional Budget Office would just look at historical facts, they also wouldn’t have come up with the fictional $1.5 trillion "cost."
Journalists such as Rampell, who oppose allowing businesses and individuals to keep more of the money they earn, supported President Obama and the Democrats in their quest for high taxes and massive regulations, the very policies that gave us the slowest economic recovery in seventy years. Why would anyone support policies that achieved such poor results unless they just wanted more government power and money?
Democrats decry these stellar results as “trickle down” and “supply side” economics, but I have never seen a party that believes as much in actual trickle-down economics as the Democrats. They believe that the government should confiscate a greater and greater share of the economy for the government, take a substantial amount for the bureaucracy itself, and trickle out the remainder to the private sector. Some goes out in food stamps, unemployment, welfare and money for political supporters such as Tesla, Solyndra and Planned Parenthood. I have heard Democrats actually and ignorantly say that food stamps and unemployment are actually great economic stimulators, yet that is false. If anything, these government giveaways make beggars of larger portions of the public, partly by creating a disincentive to work, and more importantly, by taking more money from the private sector, money that would ordinarily be used to create jobs. As Democrats praise this un-virtuous cycle and its inevitable negative results, note that these are the same people who block tax cuts for the people who earn the money, glibly saying that tax cuts don’t work.
Democrat policies certainly enrich the Washington D.C. area, as the economic data show, but most of the rest of us are left in stagnation.
Essentially, Democrats believe the people should work for and be slaves to the government instead of the government working for the people which is what Trump and most Republicans want. The founding fathers are turning over in their graves as they watch journalists lobby for a specific political party.
Thank goodness we have Trump who is giving the power and the purse back to the people as fast as he can. That one act is giving all races and genders a chance to move up the economic ladder. Much as the left yells 'fascist dictator' at him, that is the opposite of what a fascist or dictator does.
Rampell and others continually report lies about economics and other things in order to ensure that the elites and the big government behind them amass a greater share of power and money and that is a true shame. Why would anyone want so many people to be dependent on government instead of given opportunities to move up the economic ladder, particularl if they see the historical and utterly universal failure of socialist policies and the abuse of power that those policies create?