Being just slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, taxes are of great import to me. I believe in principles long established. One of them is small government works better for its citizens than large government. Lower taxes are better than higher taxes as long as the bills are being paid, our military is strong enough to deter aggressors, and basic constitutional government functions are adequately funded.
One of the breakthrough economic theories to be proven in the red hot fire of real life application has been the Laffer Curve. Arthur Laffer’s theory was adopted as fundamental to economic recovery by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 presidential campaign.
I’ll let the video below speak for itself, but will allow myself a few pithy observations.
The first time the Laffer Curve Theory was applied tax revenues skyrocketed. The U.S. Treasury’s own records show revenues generated from the early 1980’s tax cuts went up an aggregate 95%. The period measured was the time Reagan took office until he left office — just short of double in eight years. I expect this will be shown in Parts II and III when they’re released.
Actually, the first time the theory was applied was before anyone, including Laffer himself had even thought of the Laffer Curve. It was John Kennedy who cut the top marginal rate from (I’m not making this up.) about 90.5% (!) down to a paltry 70%. The reason Kennedy used was that it would spur the economy, and increase the actual tax dollars collected. Go figure. History shows he was dead on right. That top rate remained until Reagan cut it to 28% over two decades later.
Opinion — If we ever get income taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes where they belong, and combine them with cuts (elimination?) in the fat of government spending — we’ll see an economic surge that will make the Reagan boom look like a blip on the screen. But alas, I daydream. Cockroaches as a species will die before pork barrel spending does.
Opinion — Together with the significant liquidity increases in both the U.S. and European banking systems, and Bernanke’s most recent 125 point cut in the Fed Funds Rate, we now have lenders with money and a real profit margin available.
Fed rate at 3% in a lending market of 5-7% means we’re finally back where banks can lend at reasonable rates for a reasonable spread. For the first time in quite awhile the Fed Rate is lower than the 10 year bond yield, which is the norm.
Opinion — With the current tightened underwriting rules in practice, the new loans will be to borrowers/properties worthy of prudent risk. No more funny money lent to middle school teachers making $200,000 a year. 🙂
The louder the talk gets about the economy tanking the more confident I become as a contrarian. When the huge money begins sniffing around the edges of the black abyss, a change is on the way. That’s in large part why they have huge money. 🙂
Opinion — The downside? From my view, if any of the presidential wannabes are elected we’re all in deep trouble. I’ve not seen such a pathetic group since I’ve been able to vote. It’s depressing to say the least. All of them would tell you there are eight days in a week if they thought it would get them elected.
What the Laffer Curve has demonstrated beyond any rational debate, is that if tax rates are higher than a certain point, lowering them results in taxpayers modifying their behavior. Duh! I’ll only speak for myself here. If the Bush tax cuts aren’t made permanent, or worse yet our taxes are raised, I’ll be modifying my behavior.
How might you be changing yours?
Robert Kerr says:
When the huge money begins sniffing around the edges of the black abyss, a change is on the way. That’s in large part why they have huge money.
Like when all that smart money from major brokerages sucked up all those toxic CDOs 3 years ago?
Smart money, even The Oracle and The Donald, make plenty of mistakes, mistakes that would cripple ordinary people who don’t have $100 million in cash reserves to cover those mistakes.
February 2, 2008 — 7:13 pm
Doug Quance says:
I seem to remember a study that found a total tax take of 26% as a good balance for a capitalist economy.
It would provide enough money to provide the essential services without detriment to the economy. When the take goes above that, the economic growth suffers.
I can’t recall the study, but it was interesting.
February 2, 2008 — 7:18 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Doug — I vaguely remember the same study, though not the percentage. Since the Laffer Curve seems to show that roughly 30% is a slice too much, it’s easy to now look back and understand why he told Reagan to use 28%.
February 2, 2008 — 7:23 pm
Doug Quance says:
>Jeff: I just watched the video… and it does make sense.
Funny how every twenty years, we have a President who “gets it”… with Presidents in between who want to raise taxes…
😈
February 2, 2008 — 7:28 pm
Jeff Brown says:
>Funny how every twenty years, we have a President who “gets it”… with Presidents in between who want to raise taxes…
Wish I’d a said that. 🙂
February 2, 2008 — 7:32 pm
Doug Quance says:
>Jeff: Unfortunately, it’s time again for those who will raise taxes…
History has a way of repeating itself.
February 2, 2008 — 7:45 pm
Tony Gallegos says:
Jeff – If only the bulk of the voting public understood the Laffer Curve, it would make our electoral process so much more powerful. Great post Jeff!!!!
February 3, 2008 — 12:25 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Thanks Tony — If we can get out this very simple but crucial info, the result might be surprising, no matter who gets elected. Reagan used his bully pulpit. Bloggers can use daily pounding of empirical evidence to refute any agenda to the contrary.
Truth usually does come out in the end, except in politics sometimes. 🙂
February 3, 2008 — 12:31 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Jeff said “When the huge money begins sniffing around the edges of the black abyss, a change is on the way. That’s in large part why they have huge money”.
Robert said “Like when all that smart money from major brokerages sucked up all those toxic CDOs 3 years ago”?
Robert – I disagree with your take on Jeff’s point. (IMHO Jeff’s colorful phrase is memorable, but does not capture the meaning very well.) The market moves to hurt the most people, almost by definition. You are confusing “smart money” with large amounts of money.
Once “everyone” decides something (e.g. the real estate market is in terrible shape) the money becomes decidedly one-sided. An open market moves away from pressure and toward easy flow (of money); the fluidity of the market dictates the speed with which this happens. When enough people decide the market is bad, there is no longer support for that position (the money is played out) and the market begins to turn. The market always moves to hurt the most people.
By the way, smart money (such as it is) appears to be moving into the markets left by the majority already. Buffett is buying bond insurers and Ross bought a sub-prime lender.
February 3, 2008 — 1:06 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Tony – I wonder sometimes if the bulk of the voting public does understand the Laffer Curve (at least intuitively) but chooses to act in their own immediate self interest instead. This would explain voting for elected officials that promise us many political gifts… at our own expense!
February 3, 2008 — 1:09 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Sean — Your point on my choice of words is apparently on target.
By ‘huge money’ I certainly didn’t mean hedge funds roping in a bunch of investors, many of them wealthy in their own right. On the contrary, I meant guys like Buffet and Ross, who could write checks for some of those hedge funds. I then liken them to ‘smart money’ because I assume they’ve been some kinda smart to get to their level of wealth. 🙂
The Ted Kennedys of the world know Laffer’s Curve works. It skews their power equation though, and is summarily dismissed as myth. Acquiring and remaining in power is their agenda.
My greatest fear is for someone like Kennedy to wake up and figure out they can have their cake and eat it too by EMPLOYING the Curve to significantly INCREASE tax revenues, giving them MORE TAX DOLLARS TO SPEND.
For Heaven’s sake they just saw W do exactly that for eight years!
February 3, 2008 — 1:22 pm
Doug Quance says:
>Jeff: It’s not just the tax dollars to spend… it’s the campaign dollars to write tax loopholes for their contributors.
Not to overlook the whole “Evil Rich” mantra…
February 3, 2008 — 2:58 pm
Michael Cook says:
I hate to break up the Republican (Libertarian?) love fest here, but it should be noted that there are a host of other factors that influence the growth / decline of an economy. Additionally, perhaps more importantly in my opinion, is who is making money and who is not.
Reagan’s economic policies were great for the rich and wealthy, but served to increase the wealth gap significantly. Reagan did prove, quite impressively I might add, that supply side economics does not work for everyone, it works for the rich, if it works at all. I dont presume to know the status of those writing or reading here, but I can guess that most of us enjoyed great benefits during the Reagan Era; hey, I certainly enjoyed being born.
I have always assumed that the governments role was to work for the greater good (e.g. bridges, roads, etc). It would seem to me that making the rich, richer does not do that at all.
More specifically, under more recent past presidents we saw homeownership rise to the highest levels ever. Sure, some of that was gamed by the poor lending system, but those kinds of stats seem a better measure to me than real estate values.
February 3, 2008 — 5:05 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Michael,
Seeing as you were “enjoying being born” during the Reagan years rather than reaping the benefits of the greatest economic expansion the US has seen (ever?) combined with the downfall of a direct, unstable and cruel political philosophy, it is difficult for you to imagine the “before” picture. I will point out a couple of misconceptions you have that are relatively common among idealistic younger generations, tenured professors and the profoundly liberal.
Who is making money only affects the growth of the economy in that the government has more or less to redistribute. Otherwise, it is just someone’s hard earned money with which they should be free to spend or save as they like.
The wealth gap did increase, but if you look at the actual numbers the increase was due to a shrinking middle class. The lower class decreased (although the decrease is slighted by the increase in the baseline measurement of what constitures poverty) and some in the middle class did well enough to move into the upper class. The so called “wealth gap” looks as if it has grown but only because more people are doing better. This movement of the middle to the upper is the upward mobility of a capitalist society and is in fact the American Dream, right?
It is fashionable to say that supply side economics does not work, but again: the greatest economic expansion in our history. The problem that certain groups have philosophically with this expansion is that they did not control and distribute it as they saw fit. The free market just went ahead and improved lives without their consent.
Our differences are summed up percisely by your assumption that the government’s role was to work for the greater good (usually defined as a greater equalization of wealth) whereas my assumption is that the govenment’s role is to protect the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness (not the guarantee mind you). In all areas that role should be minimized and localized to the greatest degree, thereby giving people the most freedom.
BTW, no one makes the rich richer by taking (stealing?) less of their money. That is like saying I improved a person’s health by hitting them less.
February 3, 2008 — 9:49 pm
Robert Kerr says:
Hi Sean. I guess I didn’t express myself well.
My point is: the “smart money” is often wrong – either early or late or just dead wrong. Buffett himself admits he’s wrong almost half the time.
No matter what Buffett is doing, there is no rebound on the horizon, for either jobs, the markets, GDP or real estate and deciding what to do based on what Buffett is doing is a huge mistake. Mr. Buffett has the luxury of a huge cash reserve to cover his mistakes.
February 3, 2008 — 10:25 pm
Todd Carpenter says:
Forget the electorate. I wish more politicians understood the Laffer Curve, especially the one running for president. I wonder what Bloomberg’s opinion is?
February 4, 2008 — 3:02 am
Greg Swann says:
This is an extract from an essay I wrote in 1993. I think the Socialist argument is weaker than it was 15 years ago, but, beyond that, almost nothing has changed.
February 4, 2008 — 9:29 am
Jeff Brown says:
Todd — If Bloomberg runs, it’ll without doubt be a repeat of ’92 when the Little Napoleon gave Clinton the White House. Without Perot sucking Republican votes from Bush, Clinton wouldn’t have come within sniffing distance of winning. Perot won 19% of the vote, which the experts on both sides of the isle have agreed — 75% of those were Bush votes gone astray. In other words, instead of being elected president with barely over 42% of the vote, Clinton would’ve found himself on a plane back to Hope.
Bloomberg will do the same to any Republican nominee.
February 4, 2008 — 10:49 am
Jeff Brown says:
Greg — Why do you think we all long for another Reagan? Even he ended up doing things I still don’t understand — sans the explanation of pragmatism.
I’ve been a purist when it comes to conservatism, except when it has come time to vote. Holding my nose has become a habit. 🙂
Ms. Coulter has inspired me to sic Hilary on the country as an act of tough love. 🙂
February 4, 2008 — 10:53 am
Doug Quance says:
“Ms. Coulter has inspired me to sic Hilary on the country as an act of tough love.”
Don’t laugh. There are many people thinking the same thing.
February 4, 2008 — 10:56 am
Jeff Brown says:
Yeah, I realize that Doug. What scares me about that is what happened the last time we had an incredibly intelligent socialist in the White House.
He gave the Panama Canal away; almost ruined our military; made us a laughingstock internationally by his mishandling of Iran’s hostage taking; wrecked our economy; then blamed the people for it.
If he were elected this November, I’d be afraid for my heirs’ futures literally.
If we do it and end up with President Hilary, we’ll also get, for no added cost, the bonus of Bill wandering the White House with nothing to do.
And that’s not funny at all.
February 4, 2008 — 11:22 am
Doug Quance says:
I thought about that, too, Jeff.
But the peanut farmer was elected as a result of the country having a seizure over a Presidential pardon… which, in retrospect, was the best thing to do. Perhaps not politically – but for the sake of the country.
And I remember what happened to the military – I was serving at that time. ’76 to ’80. Remember the catastrophe with the helicopters? I was in a helo squadron… and we thought it was a big deal to get five of our home-ported helos (out of thirteen) spinning on the tarmac at the same time.
February 4, 2008 — 11:31 am
Jeff Brown says:
First and foremost, thank you for your service.
My Uncle Dick is a retired Air Force fighter pilot. He told me stories of Carter’s military policy results. Like having to have many planes cannibalized to keep one in the air, etc., etc.
How anyone takes the man from Georgia seriously is beyond me. History can only be rewritten so much.
February 4, 2008 — 11:39 am
Doug Quance says:
Cannibalization is what put those five on the tarmac at once. It took twice as much labor to replace parts… but we had to get our flight hours – and we had to get the parts from somewhere…
February 4, 2008 — 11:43 am
Todd Carpenter says:
>>”If we do it and end up with President Hilary, we’ll also get, for no added cost, the bonus of Bill wandering the White House with nothing to do.”
Come on Jeff, I’m sure he’ll find somebody.
February 4, 2008 — 12:37 pm
Arlington Virginia Condos -- Jay says:
Sean, your response to Michael was excellent. Thank you for saving me the hassle thereof by correcting the record of the 80s and “wealth gaps”.
I still have on file an article by Thomas Sowell back in the 90s on “trickle down economics” that the Left was railing and continues to rail against. The gist of the article was that the economic expansion of the 80s was actually trickle up economics. And more than ever as a very small business person I understand what he was saying.
Rich dude XXX or middle class guy invests a crapload of $$$$ into a business venture of some sort. In most cases within a couple years his dream of creating a successful business falls apart and aside from what he learned from he lost a lot of $$$$ and time. If he is fortunate enough to succeed after a few years he can start recovering $$$$ that he originally put on the table. He hasn’t really made a profit yet…but is paying off old debts most likely from his startup. However during those years of getting the business running and years of recovering his startup $$$$ and getting in the black he has employees who from day 1 are making $$$$– a salary with health care benefits, etc. Their families benefit from it for years and so do the customers of the business for years before Rich Dude XXX or middle class guy FINALLY starts to make $$$$ of his business. The trickle is up…with the investor getting paid ($$$) last not first. The guy on the bottom rung gets his $$$$ immediately.
February 4, 2008 — 1:10 pm
Arlington Virginia Condos -- Jay says:
Doug, I hear what you are saying about wanting to sic Hillary on the country. I’ve been debating that issue seriously myself. The rational being look what happened after Carter (Reagan)and Clinton (’94 conservative “revolution” in Congress). Perhaps losing the election short term would best serve longer term cause of conservatism and bring about another round of shakeups in DC.
However Kristol wrote a thought provoking piece about some of these issues that is worth reading with an open mind. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04kristol.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Selecting lesser of evils is depressing. Johnny boy will select preacher boy–since I’m a person of strong faith I can say this 🙂 –as his running mate is my guess on where it’s all headed….
February 4, 2008 — 1:18 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Todd — Couldn’t leave ‘bad enough’ alone, could you? 🙂
February 4, 2008 — 1:59 pm
Michael Cook says:
Sean (et al.),
I am not sure how you can argue that the wealth gap did not increase dramatically. Sure a portion of the middle class moved on up into the American Dream, I do not know the stats (20-40%?), but the point of the wealth gap speaks clearer to the actual poor, who got remarkably poorer during the Reagan Era. With the significant reduction of welfare and a freezing of the minimum wage, he virtually assured the poor that they would get significantly poorer and they did. The point of “motivating” the poor by removing much needed assistance, only served to increase crime and poverty.
Additionally, with the focus on the arms race, there was little money left for schools to educate those poor / lower middle class to achieve the so called American Dream. For me, the middle class moving into the upper class is less of an accomplishment, then seeing a large number of families go from eating to not eating. To me this is the wealth gap. If the quality of life improved for all, I would hail Reagan as a hero (well, probably not), but it is clear that was not the case. Just my opinion.
February 4, 2008 — 2:39 pm
Jeff Brown says:
It’s perceptions like that, real and heartfelt, that urge me to listen to that little voice in the back of my head have its way. Vote for Obama or Hilary.
I became a little emotional during the Ford/Carter campaign one night while having dinner with Dad and some of his buddies. After saying I was gonna vote for Carter, as it seemed his election was inevitable anyway, I looked up at several pairs of very angry eyes.
I’d just turned 25, and was told in language unrepeatable here, to begin acting as an adult.
Fast forward to the 1980 election campaign. While enjoying some fries and a drink with Dad and many of those same friends, I was not so tactfully reminded of the four year old conversation.
Dick then spoke up and asked me how’d I’d feel if it was proven my vote was the difference in the ’76 election — I put Carter into office. Given what had happened in four short years, namely mayhem and disaster everywhere in every aspect of American life, I didn’t have an answer.
As much as I’d love seeing Hillary or Obama elected so the country can see once and for all what they would reap — I simply can’t in good conscience do that to my kids, grandkids, and more importantly my country.
February 4, 2008 — 3:19 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Jay — I admire and respect Bill Kristol a great deal. Though, as written above, I’d love to have my cake and eat it too, by having the Dems in office, holding my nose and getting at least conservative lip service is better than nothing.
Bill makes salient points, but as Greg so painfully points out, pragmatism can often mean setting hard won principles aside.
I guess that’s the stink for which we hold our noses. 🙂
February 4, 2008 — 3:29 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Jay – Great reference in Thomas Sewell. One of the most astute and well-researched economic thinkers of our time. Completely ignored by main stream media. Have to assume it is because he does not fit “the mold”. Media awareness of him would recognize a formidable voice of conservative economic thought (which they will do from time to time); but it would also force them into the politically incorrect position of crossing swords with him on the welfare state mentality.
February 4, 2008 — 5:01 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Oops! correct spelling:Sowell
For those that might like to Google him.
February 4, 2008 — 5:04 pm
Eric Blackwell says:
Todd- That was priceless.
>>”If we do it and end up with President Hilary, we’ll also get, for no added cost, the bonus of Bill wandering the White House with nothing to do.”
“Come on Jeff, I’m sure he’ll find somebody.”
February 4, 2008 — 5:12 pm
Tony Gallegos says:
As the well known (life long) outspoken socialist economist Robert Heilbroner stated at the end of his career;
“Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won…Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism…capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure.”
Heilbroner also complimented Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises on their insistence of the free market’s superiority. He emphasized that “democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist.”
I myself was educated at arguably two of the most liberal universities in the country (University of Colorado at Boulder (undergrad) and Cal Berkeley (grad). At each school I was educated and spoon fed much of the liberal PC economic and social theory thought that Michael (above) so embraces. Fortunately, I had a Professor (Ed Rozek) at Colorado that insisted on his students digging deep beneath the layers of PC thought and question the practicality of their well intented yet impractical economic and social theory.
February 4, 2008 — 6:21 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Tony — Even though the next time I see you in person will be the first time, you’re gonna get the bear hug of a lifetime. 🙂
February 4, 2008 — 7:58 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Sean and Jay — You’ve both, along with Tony, done be a great service today. Recovering from a moderately severe ‘allergy bout’ has made my brain somewhat compromised lately. 🙂
Thanks
February 4, 2008 — 8:00 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Additionally, with the focus on the arms race, there was little money left for schools to educate those poor / lower middle class to achieve the so called American Dream”
I have a simple solution for that, Michael; privatize education. If there’s one thing I learned as a student and a parent it is that more money does not equal higher quality.
The one thing Reagan tried to enact that would have vastly improved education was tuition tax credits. Those tax credits would have greatly helped poor people secure better educations for their children. The current real estate-based education system is a burdensome progressive tax on the poorest families.
IF government is to serve the greater good, it would do well to exit the education business and stop favoring the elite by serving the toniest of suburbs best.
February 4, 2008 — 10:45 pm
Michael Cook says:
Brian,
Agree 100%.
Others,
It is also important to note as a student of economics, I do agree with some of the things said above. Reagan should get credit for appointing some top notch advisors, truly reining in inflation and dealing a serious blow to unions, the king of all ineffecient enterprises.
However, the massive deficits and short sited social policies really strike me glaring negatives. While many will claim it was a smart move to lower taxes by 2/3 (well not many, just Reagan fans) while in an arms race, none of the data I have seen proves that out. Interestingly enough it took a Dem to balance the budget and now another republican has come in spending money like water. Is that good for your children or mine?
In comparison to Carter, Reagan was significantly better economically for the country, sure. But does that make him great, of course not. Give me Greenspan and Summers and other top economists and a president willing to listen (Clinton, Reagan, etc.) and I can give you economic prosperity for four years.
Reagan’s social policies have been proven to be highly ineffective (i.e. welfare, schools, Social Security?!). At least the Dems have the courage (sense?) to increase taxes and spending. Decreasing taxes and increasing spending is extremely short sited. Even Laffer notes that Social Security was an extremely bad move in conjunction with major tax cuts. Jeff and others, since it seems you all are concerned about the state of the world for your kids, I expect to see at least 6 to 12 more Obama / Hillary votes, unless you want to see US treasuries trading at junk bond status in 2040.
February 5, 2008 — 10:29 am
Doug Quance says:
>Michael: Reagan did not lower taxes by 2/3rds. He did lower rates, which – as the Laffer Curve shows – brought in more income to the treasury. Revenues to the federal government doubled during that time.
The problem with the deficit during those years is that for every dollar we increased military spending (which was badly needed) we increased other domestic pork projects by TWO dollars. That was the only way to get the military projects through Tip O’Neill.
Your citing welfare, schools and social security is further evidence that the government can not be entrusted with these duties, as they time and again have proven their ineptness at efficiency and efficacy.
We only got a balanced budget after a Republican congress dragged Bill Clinton screaming and kicking to do it. It took them three times before they got him to sign off on it… and even then, he doubted it could be done.
Those same sorry-assed Republicans turned into liberals during W’s term and refused to hold the line on spending. That’s the primary reason why they got their collective asses handed to them in 2006. That and a few scandals, that is.
The problem is that we have reached a point in time where the beneficiaries of benefits from the public treasury now outnumber the number of people forced to pay for said benefits. And until the day comes that we only allow those who are net tax PAYERs to vote – we are doomed.
We’re getting screwed from both sides. Face it.
February 5, 2008 — 2:37 pm
Tony Gallegos says:
Michael,
As you claim to be a student of economics, you would realize the following happened after Reagan cut taxes:
1.) Tax revenue almost doubled from the time the Reagan tax cuts took place to the time he left office (refer to Laffer Curve).
2.) The 80’s arms race with the Soviets caused them to keep up with the Jones (USA) and the stress of Soviet arms buildup caused the USSR economy to collapse and thus the Soviet system of government also imploaded.
3.) With the collapse of the USSR, military spending in the USA was recduced by almost 74% effectively.
4.) Couple points 1 and 3, it leads to the economic expansion experienced in the 1990’s, which led to further increases in tax revenues which led to a balanced budget, etc….
My Professor (Ed Rozek) was an advisor to Ronald Reagan and his expertise was Eastern European and nuclear policy. In 1984, Ed Rozek predicted points 1-4 would happen by 1994. I’ll admit I laughed privately at his prediction. However, in 1990, I remembered my dear professor predicting such and by 1995 I shook my head in amazement at the economic expansion and forthcoming balanced budgets that hapened as a result of the Reagan tax cuts and 80’s arms build-up.
I can hardly see what Clinton had to do with the economic expansion of the 1990’s. Never once has anyone been able to tell me what economic legistlation the Clinton administration passed that positively effected the US economy.
As a student of economic theory, you should be aware that many times economic policies come to fruition 5 to 10 years later. And it is not only Reagan fans that claim the 80’s tax cuts were a smart move…most economist and historians do as evidenced by the largest historian association naming Reagan as one of the top five most effective Presidents in history.
February 5, 2008 — 6:03 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Doug,
“We’re getting screwed from both sides. Face it.”
Got to love that line. I don’t know whether to laugh at the lunacy of being screwed from both sides yet trying to “face” it, or cry because you put a scary ‘incumbent menage-a-trois’ image in my head.
There is probably a pretty good joke in there about making the Libertarian slogan “let go of my ears I know what I’m doing”… but I will leave it alone. 🙂
February 5, 2008 — 6:39 pm
Scott Saghirian says:
One word: FairTax
February 5, 2008 — 10:46 pm
Dave Shafer says:
Hate to break up your ideological lovefest, but….
Taxes have been consistently shifted from the corporations to the people by politicians from both parties since the early 1970’s.
That is fine by me as it is pretty simple to join the tax winners.
Income for the bottom 80% of earners has been stagnant since 1972, a period with both parties have had the presidency and control of congress.
Wealth is as concentrated as it was in the gilded age.
One other comment, really a quibble, but having been around universities for 20 years as a student or a professor I gotta tell you that economic departments are a bastion of conservatism. Now if you want to talk about the sociology department….well a different story….been part of many discussions with econ profs and sociology profs and I can tell you most are about as divergent in their ideology as possible…
February 6, 2008 — 3:38 pm