Rick,
How can you characterize and reach conclusions about conservative economic policy, when we haven’t had it for over a century? Reagan’s tenure was dominated by the Volcker induced recession that started him off deep in the economic and budgetary hole and when Reagan proposed eliminating the double tax on dividends, he was greeted by a chorus of class warfare rhetoric from the Democrats and the media. His budget chief also worked internally to oppose implementation of supply side economics. GW Bush stuck to his guns better on elimination of the double tax on dividends, but even he only achieved a reduction in it by half, so equity financing was still taxed 50% greater than debt financing. Bush inherited the dot.com bubble from Clinton. Although Bush tried to reign in the government sponsored enterprises, FANNIE and FREDDIE, he wasn’t willing to expend much of his political capital on it in the face of corrupt Democratic opposition. Neither president put the money supply on a sound basis, nor did a good job of balancing the budget. Neither president achieved the type of major reform of the tax code, that would tax consumption and not savings.
My conclusion that abortion should be left to the states, is based upon application of constitutional law, that even some liberal jurists admit should have been the result of Roe v. Wade. Whether one is pro-choice or not shouldn’t influence his assessment of correct application of the law. Of course, I would hope that every state would decide that abortion should be legal, passing statutes or amending their constitutions as necessary.
The right to keep and bear arms on the other hand, is in the constitution, and it is clear that the main authors considered an armed populace as the ultimate check on the government, should the other checks and balances fail.
regards,
Martin
···
----- Original Message -----
From: “Richard Marken” rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 10:01:46 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: perspective on the healthcare bill
[From Rick Marken (2009.09.03.0900)]
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Martin Lewitt mlewitt@comcast.net wrote:
I just caught a part of Laura Ingraham’s interview with Dick Morris, and he had an interesting perspective on the healthcare bill in the house. He says that the Democrats are engaged in
"healthcare redistribution
Finally, someone who understands a bit of economics.
One of the consistent themes I see in my discussions with conservatives is their deep conviction that they understand economics while liberals like myself don’t. This, despite the fact that, by virtually every measure of economic performance, the data show that conservative economic policies have produced worse results than liberal ones. In my “Got data” post I show that increasing the top marginal tax rate (which redistributes income) is associated with greater growth and lower unemployment. I have shown that increases in investment follow increases in growth (rather than vice versa, as predicted by economic theory). The only place where conservative economic policies do better than liberal ones is in increasing wealth discrepancy.
I think conservatives have managed to con people into thinking that they are the “grown ups” when it comes to economics. In fact, I think it’s clear that they are the Elmer Gantrys of economics, playing on people’s (possibly as well as their own) fears and predjudices to enrich themselves.
I don’t think anyone, liberal or conservative, understands economics particularly well. And they won’t start understanding it until they start building plausible models that accurately predict the data. But until then I think we should evaluate economic policies based on data not on beliefs, no matter how firmly held the latter. And the data show clearly that conservative economic policies have produced far worse results (slower growth, higher unemployment, stagnant wages, etc) than liberal ones (unless one’s goal is enriching the rich and impoverishing the middle class).
Best
Rick
PS. I’m glad to see, Martin L, that you are “pro-choice”; what could be a more horrendous governmental intrusion on one’s autonomy than to prevent you from doing what you feel is necessary with your own body. But I thought I detected the typical conservative hedging about this when you said that you thought it should be left to the states. That doesn’t sound very pro-choice to me. What about the states that would outlaw abortion? This is like saying you are anti-slavery but that it should be left up to the states. Would you be comfortable about leaving gun rights up to the states?
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com