Saturday, April 21, 2007

Liberalism: A Modern Tragedy

08/28/96 Liberalism: A Modern Tragedy By M. Asinoff

Liberalism and Conservatism are fundamentally opposing ideologies on both domestic and foreign affairs. The terms are very ambiguous and subjective. The meanings vary greatly depending upon who, what and where you are. Most people on both sides are reasonable and willing to compromise for a middle-ground where everyone can live. Unfortunately, some people on both sides are very unwielding and "when someone is dogmatic they are closed-minded." (Eileen Tenenbaum)

Conservatism proposes and follows the Jeffersonian mentality upon which our fore-fathers envisioned and established Democracy: a very small central government to regulate and serve certain basic needs: international and interstate commerce, producing and regulating a national currency that is accepted as a means of exchange nationally and internationally, a national military to protect us and our interests from foreign enemies. The balance of power has been a seesaw ever since the Constitution was written. It was the reason the Bill of Rights was created.

In fact, it was one of the major causes of the Civil War. The South resented the Federal Government dictating laws on slavery. It will probably always be a tug of war. It has worked well up until the Great Depression when F.D.R. changed that. He borrowed from Communism to save Capitalism by creating many government programs such as Social Security. Pure Capitolism does not work because it does care about people. And pure Socialism does not work because it stifles competition. You need to blend them in order achieve balance.

Liberalism's premise, however is quite opposite from conservatism. It promotes a big central government to micromanage people's many needs and desires. They oppose the Republican Congress issuing block grants to the states so they can manage it as they see fit. I say let the states run things and "100 flowers grow." (Mao Sedung)

Some people say witty things such as, "I don't know if Liberalism is modern, but it's certainly a tragedy." (Bing Inocensio) Many questions come to mind, such as is Liberalism a failure in the U.S.? If so why? Many Conservatives feel liberalism is a disease that will ruin the nation. Some say it often condones a lifestyle that includes seeking immediate gratification. If asked to specify they might say by condoning sexual promiscuity and divorce. People should pursue long term resolutions such as commitment and wait for marriage. It opposes proven things such as traditional Judeo-Christian family values, fidelity and spirituality. These values are the bedrock of our society and the fabric from which our forefathers created this great nation.

What is Liberalism? A popular joke about the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that a Liberal is a Conservative who is unemployed and a Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged. Liberalism has become primarily a selfish, dysfunctional philosophy. It often promotes multi-culturalism: a premise with a very noble intent: help create peace and harmony among various cultures in the U.S. by appreciating people's differences, variety is the spice of life. Sometimes, tragically, troubles- arise when it backfires because demagogues like Al Sharpton manipulate and exploit them to feed the fires of racism. This creates tremendous tensions, disharmony and cultural suicide.

The U.S. founding fathers were liberals in their era. So were the Yankees in the Civil War. In post Communism Russia, Democracy and Capitalism are liberal ideas. So are the Nicaraguan rebels fighting for Democracy. A general definition of liberal today in the U.S. has changed in the past generation to become more radical than ever before.

"Liberalism started out as an over-reaction to the 1950's." (Bill Alframedes) But it helped achieve some very worthwhile goals such as affordable education for the poor, improving the quality of life for many working poor families and civil rights for minorities in the 1960's. One cannot help but wonder just how hard life would be if not for all the good things it did to improve the quality of life in America. Back then Hubert Humphrey ran for president and talked about traditional family values. It's biggest problem now is that it got away from these goals becoming a monster like the one it set out to defeat with the liberal media helping demagogues like Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton take the helm and steer it straight down hill at light speed.

In an article by Bob Herbert people were asked to define a Liberal. They said, "Being a Liberal meant you cared about people being fed, clothed, housed and able to make a decent living. He noted contempt for unions and anti-poverty programs were ridiculed, even though they both helped millions of Americans for decades. The number of poor children in the U.S. rose 37% in the past 20 years, while in the 1960's it was cut by 50%." (N.Y. Times, 7/4/93, E-11) President Johnson saw Liberalism as a way of waging war on poverty and creating a world "...where no child goes unfed or unschooled, every teacher is good, gets good money and classrooms, everyone has dignity, every worker has a job, education is color blind, employment is unaware of race, decency appeals and courage abounds."

People like hippies and ideas like the peace movement, free love and "flower power" started out protesting the Vietnam War. However well meaning they were, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's cliché, but true. They combined with wide spread experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs like L.S.D. and Heroin causing the senseless death of many teens in the 1960's, in addition to feeding an anti-establishment/American mentality. Reagan helped revitalize the nation by renewing our sense of patriotism in the 80's. But Liberalism's opposition to the status quo has become more like that of labor unions and big business than the noble cause it started out as. "It has become a step shy of anarchy." (Frank Dering) Liberals like Ed Koch, say, "I'm a Liberal with sanity." But do not know that it is an oxymoron and a paradox. Some liberals joke, "Military intelligence is also a oxymoron and a paradox too." (D. Axelrod)

Sadly, in 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president with a million votes less than Michael Dukakis lost with in 1988. Why? Because Americans decided that character does not matter! Some even feel that "the Liberal party was wandering in the desert, waiting for their Joshua to take them home to the promised- land. Clinton is their Joshua and 1993 was their year." (Tom Karfunkel)

Al Roberts put all in "The Psalms Of N.Y.: Mario Cuomo is my shepherd, I shall not want. He leadeth me beside still factories, and restoreth my doubt in N.Y. politics. He guideth me to the path of unemployment, and annointeth my wage with freeze, so my expense runneth over my income. Surely, poverty and hard living shall follow his administration and I shall live in a rented house forever.

"5000 years ago, Moses said 'Pack your camel, pick up your shovel, mount your ass, and I'll lead you to the promised land.' 5000 years later F.D.R. said 'Lay down your shovel, sit on your ass and light up a camel. This is the promised land.' Today Mario Cuomo will tax your shovel, sell your camel, kick you in the ass, and say the promised land is in Japan." (New York Post, Rey Kerrison's column, October 7, 1991, p.6)

Liberalism today has become totally opposite from its original premise of "that government is best, which governs least." (Tom Jefferson) It seeks a huge central government although "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." (James Madison, Federalist Papers # 49) It now has a socialist mentality and believes a big government is Santa Claus, or dad to resolve all the problems we face from cradle to grave and womb to tomb.

"Government should see that the economics game is played vigorously and according to the rules. But the referee can't also play, for who'll referee him." (Jim Ramsey, Economic Forecasting, Models or Markets, 1977) *Like it, or not, "government is the great fiction, through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." (Fred Bostait, Essays on Political Economy, 1872)

One of the foolish things a large government does it pays farmers not to grow food. It's gotten to the point that "consumer prices held far below cost have led to callosal waste: it often pays farmers to sell their grain to the state, and then buy back the subsidized bread made from the grain, to use as animal feed." (Peter Passel, Where Consumer Economics fell Short, NY Times, December 17, 1989, E-3)

Many Liberals want big government to regulate prices because "if all prices rose equally, no harm would be done to anyone. But it is not. Many lose and some gain." (Irving Fisher, 1920) Because "one man's wage rise is another's price hike." (Sir Harold Wilson, 1970) "Some people say prosperity is when the prices of things you sell rise and inflation is when the cost of the things you buy rise." (Steven L. Slavin, Introduction to Economics, 9:157)

He was elected despite not filing income tax for four years. Yet, he sang the old liberal song we must raise taxes to balance the budget. We never heard why N.Y.C. Off Track Betting was the only bookie losing money since Hazel Duke was made commissioner. Nor did we hear why she spent $20,000 in city to redo her bathroom. Or, that she cost NYC thousands in damages to settle discrimination cases with all the white people she fired to replace with blacks. Why didn't he fire her and the city housing commissioner who spent $4,000 on a couch for her office?

When Dinkins took office in N.Y.C., in January, 1990 he said, "I'll be a healing mayor." During his reign a Korean Supermarket was unjustly boycotted by militant black demagogues led by Reverend Al Sharpton. Dinkins failed to have the police enforce a restraining order keeping the protestors back 50 feet.

In Crown Heights, his policy was containment, and allowing mobs to rampage. He said, "Let the mobs vent their anger." They rioted because a Hasidic Jewish man lost control of his car and accidentally ran over two small black children killing Gavin Kato: a seven-year-old boy. Some blacks believed that despite his being a devoutly religious man of God, he did this intentionally. What kind of a monster would willfully murder a total stranger: a child in cold blood, in public? Not to mention the fact that his religion preaches that life is sacred.

Some blacks formed lynch mobs and killed two men, an American man who one who appeared Jewish and Yankel Rosenbauman, an Australian Jew. A mob attacked, beat and stabbed him repeatedly. What ever happened to innocent, until proven guilty? Dinkins is both politically and morally guilty of omission to this crime because of his inaction. Lymrick Nelson was arrested and released due to a technicality. Then Dinkins slapped not just every Jew, but every decent law-abiding citizen in the face: he offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators of this heinous crime a year later! The DA cleared the driver of any wrong doing 22 months later. He was being sued personally for his actions.

Lymrick Nelson was acquitted of criminal charges. But convicted of civil charges. The driver was brought up on charges of vehicular homicide, but was acquitted when a D.A. investigation showed mechanical failure caused the accident. The driver then fled home to Israel for safety, only to have Rev. Al Sharpton seeking him in hopes of serving him with a subpena requiring his return to the U.S. This was demagoguery, done with the prior knowledge that the man had a lawyer in N.Y.C. that could be served on behalf of his client.

In Washington Heights, he did very little to control mobs after a cop shot a suspect in self-defense. To add insult to injury he paid for the "victim" to be shipped back to S. America, even though he was an illegal alien and drug dealer. While mobs looted and burned LA, in May 1992, Mayor Dinkins thanked people for not rioting. How effective can a mayor be when he thanks criminals for that?

Yet 95% of blacks and many Jews voted to reelect him, because "Guliani is a fascist and yes, Dinkins made mistakes. But anyone can and he deserves a second chance." (Regina Lebowitz) Dinkins lost by about 2%, with Staten Is. giving Guliani a very slim victory. Unfortunately, many Jews are too liberal for their own good. They end up willing victims and their own worst enemy!

Due to ineptness R. Limbaugh calls him "General Dinkins" and did a parody of the theme song from the 1950's television show "Car 54, Where Are You?" "Oh, there's a hold up in the Bronx. Brooklyn's broken in fights. There's a traffic jam in Harlem that's backed up to Jackson Heights. There's a scout troop short a child and Krushev is due at Idle Wile. General David Dinkins where are you?"

Many Libs often criticize Reagan and Bush for under-funding AIDS research. But rarely acknowledge the fact that is a primarily a behavioral controlled disease! They sometimes compare alcohol and drug abuse to *AIDS because they are also primarily behavioral controlled diseases. Yet few mention that AIDS is a political issue, and rarely is government criticized for under-funding alcohol and drug abuse. They attack former V.P. Quayle, saying things like not everyone has a family like him, but are speechless if they do and are reminded of it. Besides what is wrong with having a family like Dan Quayle? Traditional families like that helped make the U.S. the greatest super power in the world today.

Another fairy tale told to Americans is "this Congress produced a budget that reduced the deficit by $1/2 Trillion, cut spending and raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

"Last year we began to put our house in order by tackling the budget deficit that was driving us toward bankruptcy. We cut $255 Billion in spending, including entitlement and over 340 separate budget items. We froze domestic spending and used honest budget numbers." (President Clinton, January 25, 1994)

Democrats are known for taxing and spending. They do not realize, "the power to tax is the power to destroy!" (Chief Justice J. Marshall) Yet, many Americans voted for Clinton in 1992. Many believed him when he said, "I'll cut taxes on the middle class." He's now going to raise taxes as a magic answer to all our ailments, as Democrats have usually done to no avail. Even he said, "To continue using a formula that does not work and expect a new outcome is insane." Yet, he and many others still try to convince us that raising taxes is the answer to our problems, despite it deepening the recession. Few believed and some criticized President Bush and V.P. Quayle in 1992 during the presidential debates when they said, "Clinton's economic plan will raise taxes on families earning $36,000 a year!" At a press conference a man asked Clinton a good question: "Can you name one nation that taxed itself into prosperity, just one?" After hesitating a moment he said, "No, but that's not what my plan is."

Now that we chose liberal co-presidents as our leaders, their fiscal policy should be simple: "the budget should be balanced, the treasuries…refilled and the public debt…reduced. The arrogance of officialdom…tempered and controlled. And assistance to foreign lands…curtailed, less we become bankrupt." (Cicero, 63 B.C)

Some Liberals are radicals like the Communists in 1917. They want to see Democracy fall and Socialism rise. They employ revisionist history in many ways: changing the 1980's by making unfounded accusations such as Reagan increased the deficit, lumping him and Bush together and blaming everything on them.

Many Liberals and the media conveniently omit many facts: congress was Democratically controlled from 1984-1992. "Reagan doubled the treasury holdings from $244 to over $500 billion during his administration." (I.R.S.) He lowered tax rates in 1982 in exchange for eliminating deductions such as interest on credit cards and auto loans. He also enacted the Tax Equity Fiscal Reform Act in 1985: the largest tax hike in history at the time. And "Reagan cut the deficit from 25.7% and 208 in 1983, to 14.6% and 155 in 1988. Bush almost doubled it in two years from 152 in 1989, to 271 in 1991. Clinton projected a rise to 296 in 1994, 302 in 1995, 301 in 1996, 327 in 1997 and 361 in 1998." (Congressional Budget Office, in Billions and total spending)

Many Liberals say Reagan and Bush only care for the rich and are apathetic about poverty in the U.S. They don't say "nearly 40% of 'poor' people own homes, averaging $46,600 each. More than 70,000 the homes are worth over $300,000, and ten times that number of 'poor' own homes worth over $100,000. Over 60% of 'poor' households own cars; even more have air conditioners and microwaves, 5% of 'poor' households own two or more cars. 'Poor' Americans live in larger homes or apartments, eat more meat, and are more likely to own cars and dishwashers than the general population of W. Europe." (Bob Rector, Heritage Foundation)

Black Expo U.S.A. said the 1980's really were successful for blacks. "Black families with annual incomes of $50,000 + rose over 50% during the 1980's, growing from 762,000 to 1,162,000 families. The amount of blacks in managerial and professional specialty jobs grew from 1.3 to nearly two million in 1991, a 50% gain in eight years. Black consumer households spend over $300 billion annually." (1992 Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics)

And "focusing on two overwhelming black census tracts in Laurelton, N.Y., population 4000, Dr. Beveridge found that between 1980 and 1990, the amount of adults in the work force rose 2/3- 3/4. The amount of college graduates 25 plus, rose from 30 to 52%, the percent of people below the poverty line plunged from 13% to 3% and the average family income more than doubled." (N.Y. Times, Black Households Median Income Leads Whites In Queens, Sam Roberts, A1, June 6, 1994)

Before a Senate Budget Hearing Representative Barbara Boxer, (D) California, said, "I think we have three options: A) Continuing on the path of the 80's: budget negotiations in Senate with a raging deficit, lower standards of living, tax giveaways to the richest. My God! Their incomes rose 150% in the last decade! B) Or, we can go with the new Republican idea of a permanent recession, 200,000 jobs lost and $1 billion reduction in the Gross Domestic Production..."

History will say Bush and Clinton, not the usual liberal Reagan and Bush rhetoric. The proof is in things such as the increasing gap between the rich and poor. That is something many liberals like to blame on the 1980's, Reagan and Bush. President Clinton said, "The goal of this administration must be to help get Americans better jobs..." (Robert Reisch, Labor Secretary)

They might be surprised to learn that "the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. From 1989-middle 1993, earnings fell for most Americans, it was greatest for those at the low end of the scale. New surveys show that the average corporate CEO earns 149 times the pay of the average factory worker, while nearly 18% of full time workers do not make enough to keep a family of four out of poverty..." (U.S. News and World Report, N.Y., May 30, 1994, Bridging the bitter income divide, Susan Dentzer, p.53)

For centuries people have paid taxes and "it is generally allowed by all, that men should contribute to the public charge according to the shared interest they have in the public peace; that is, according to their estates, or riches." (Sir William Petty, A treaty of Taxes and Contributions, 1662)* That is nice, but in reality many non users are unfairly forced to subsidize things like the N.Y.C. Transit Authority through sur taxes on phone bills, tolls on Port Authority bridges, tunnels, etc. Why should commuters be forced to help pay for mass transit if they do not use it? Why should rich parents who send their kid to private school be forced to help finance public education? Whether, or not she can afford it, is irrelevant. No one should be penalized for being rich. It is not a crime, or sin, despite what many Liberals say!

On Sept. 30, 1990, Bush raised taxes and said, "The by-partisan leaders and I have reached an agreement on the federal budget. Over five years it will reduce the deficit by $500 billion, that's a $1/2 Trillion!" On that day Senator Jim Sasser, (D) Tennessee said, "At the risk of sounding immodest I helped create this bill. We are on the verge of passing the largest deficit reduction act in the history of this Republic and putting it into law." But it did not! "If it didn't work why is the deficit being blamed on the 12 years and why should we live through it again?" (Rush Limbaugh)

Representative Gerry Studs, (D) Massachusetts, said that the reason the deficit is so large despite the by-partisan attempt to reduce it through a tax hike in 1990 was because "it was done with smoke and mirrors and the usual kind of pretend thing. That's why I think that it is not just rhetorical to say that Clinton's plan is the first genuine, straight forward attempt at deficit reduction in at least twelve years."

"In 1990 taxes were raised only on those earning over $200,000. Beer doubled from $9-18 per barrel. Table wine rose 629% from 17 cents to $1.07 a gallon. Gas rose five cents a gallon, again. Cigarettes rose four cents a pack in 1991 and 1993" (1990 Budget Reduction Act). Many peope do not realize that "the art of taxation is plucking the Goose to get the most feathers with the least hissing." (Jean Colbert)

But we must accept that along with new leaders and budgets inflation will rise and fall largely due to current events. This is a much a part of reality as "inflation being like sin: every government denounces it and every government practices it." (Sir Fred Ross, June, 1957)

The president pleased many supporters when the Family Leave Act was passed. It allows people six weeks of unpaid leave from work for a family emergency.

Yet, when asked the difference between the 1990 and 1993 budget Senator Patrick Leahy, (D) Vermont, said, "This is a far more honest one. We finally have a president who admits there's a deficit. The last two did not because they created it." Senator George Mitchell, (D) Maine, responded, "It's a different time, circumstances, provisions in the bill, tax and spending cuts in the bill." Senator Don Reggie, (D) Michigan, answered, "There's also some growth initiative and more tax fairness." When asked why the 1990 budget deal failed he said, "I don't think it was really aimed to do that, or to get the job done."

Liberalism promotes "political correctness" of *higher taxation upon "rich" people for so many things that we're now at the point where, "...if you breathe, I'll tax the air. If you walk, I'll tax the street. If you're cold, I'll tax the heat, cause I'm the tax man..." (The Beatles, Tax Man). "That which angers men most is to be taxed above their neighbors (Sir William Petty, A Treaty of Taxes and Contributions, 1662). *Now that America is "being held hostage by liberal co-presidents" the "government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: is if it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it." (R. Reagan) The main problem the presidents face is that "they have the usual social disease: they are running out of other people's money." (Margret Thatcher) Many liberals do not want that a boom economy and bear stock market in the late 1990's can be traced back to the early 1980's. Or that Regan's ten cent gas tax for roads and bridges was diverted to deficit reduction.

Some liberals say this is a terrible country, but "conveniently" do not say that people literally died coming here for centuries. The amount of illegal aliens is growing rapidly. Despite this being such a terrible place, a few hundred Chinese immigrants died pursuing "The American Dream" when their boat grounded ashore in Far Rockaway, N.Y., in 1993. Illegal immigration is getting so bad that the president is hiring border guards to reduce illegal immigration. Russian comic Yakof Smirnoff said, "America, what a country!" How bad can it be if people are litterally dying to come here?

Many liberals, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, (D) Massachusetts, want the minimum wage to rise from the current $4.25 an hour and a cost of living allowance attached to it. They do not mention things such as how few people it affects. Or that many small businesses will have to pass it along to consumers by raising prices. While others will have to fire an employee to pay for it. None of them suggests lowering taxes to give people more take home money and greater disposable income. Even National Labor Secretary R. Reisch said, "...the potential effects of a minimum wage increase on employment should be weighed, particularly in combination with the effects of the health reform proposal."

It is a major part of government and therefore politics today. The president delivers an annual state of the union address to the nation in which the primary topic of discussion is economics. He reports the major details on the Gross Domestic Production, deficit, national debt, rate of inflation, trade deficit, foreign exchange rate, value of the dollar in world markets, etc.

Economics has become so intertwined in both Liberal and Conservative ideologies that it can make or break a president as it did Reagan in 1984: he asked the nation, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Their response: he was re-elected in a landslide. It has broken presidents such like Bush. He'll go down in history for his now infamous, 1988 campaign promise: "Read my lips, no new taxes!" His unprecedented victory of the Gulf War almost pails by comparison. As previously illustrated, "both foreign and domestic affairs and policies affect the economy. If he is lucky and we are prosperous the president gets the credit. If we are in a recession he gets the blame whether he deserves it or not. It goes with the job. As to just how much the numerous variables affect the economy is impossible to determine as we cannot 'unscramble the eggs.'" (Evelyn Lerner) As most Liberals and Conservatives often disagree, economists are no different either. Many Liberals believe in a Socialistic government, while most Conservatives believe in Capitalism.

Many people do not realize it, but "the entrepreneur indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention... By perusing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." (Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations, Book 4, chapter 2, pp.477-8, London: Methuen, 1950).

Some Capitalists might say that "our free enterprise system has been compared to a gigantic computing machine capable of solving its own problems automatically. But anyone who has some experience with large computers knows that even they break down and cannot operate unattended." (Wassily Leontief, 3/2/71)

Believe it or not "the rich are not the exotic back stabbers and dabblers in high finance depicted on TV. The average person with a net worth of $100,000, or more is usually a businessman who lived all his adult life in the same town. He owns a small factory, a chain of stores, or service - company. He is married and lives in a middle class neighborhood next to people with a fraction of his wealth. He is a compulsive saver, and investor. 80% of U.S. millionaires are first generation rich." (Tom J. Stanley).

H. Huges took a small company he inherited from his father at age 20 and built a billion dollar empire. Perot was a poor boy in Arkansas and had the vision to be a billionaire/presidential candidate. They represent the American Dream of entrepanuership, they all rose from humble backgrounds to greatness.

*"It's agreed that the edge of government is the good and ease of the people, in a secure enjoyment of their rights, without oppression. But it must be remembered that the rich are people as well as the poor. They have rights as well as others. They have as clear and as sacred a right to their property, as others have to theirs which is smaller; that oppression to, is as possible and as wicked as to others." (J. Adams, first vice-president and second president)

Not many liberals would admit it, but Capitalism is not evil! Even China's Communist Government realizes this and is taking steps toward it. They realize that they must "...break away from egalitarianism, so as to implement the principle of more money for more work and rationally widen the income gap. The rich should be encouraged to lean forward and support those lagging behind.

Those who have become rich should lean forward and help out those less fortunate. In a far reaching statement of economic principles the Chinese Communist Party has for the first time endorsed the development of a wealthy class as a necessary consequence of accelerated economic growth in this country. Every one around the world is recognizing this and we're moving backwards. Equality in Socialism does not work." (Chinese Begrudgingly Endorse the Rich, by , L.A. Times, November 17, 1993, p. )

Certain Liberals have a class envy mentality. They believe that raising taxes and taking from the rich and giving to the poor is the answer to all. When asked where is the money going? How many rich are there? What's rich? Or how many poor are there? They rarely have answers and spout rhetoric like parrots. Many want to play Robin Hood and are mad Kevin Costner did. They do not want to be poor, nor do they believe that "God must love the poor-he made so many of them." (Lincoln)

Many Liberals say that Reagan was a bad president because he lowered taxes on the rich during the 1980's. Many Americans are unaware that President Kennedy also believed in trickle down economics and said so in this speech.

"This administration is determined to step up our economic growth. Our true choice is not tax reduction on the one hand, or deficit reduction on the other.

" economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough reserves to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs, or profits. Surely the lesson of the past decade is that the budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would cause new deficit records. In short it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut taxes now.

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers is to reduce the burden upon private income, and the deterrent to private initiatives which are imposed by our private system. This administration pledged itself last summer to an across the board, top to bottom tax cut in personal and corporate taxes to be enacted, and become cut effective in 1963. I'm not suggesting a 'quickie', or temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were eminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaints. I'm talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system developed in good part in W.W. 2 to restrain growth exerts too heavy a drag upon growth during peace time. It siphons out too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the financial incentives to investment and risk taking.

"In short, to increase demand and lift the economy the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures and opportunities for private expenditures. For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets who are certain to spend their additional take home pay and for those in the middle and upper income brackets who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts to invest more capitol. I'm introducing to congress a bill lowering the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70% and the bottom from 20 to 14%." (J.F.K., 12/14/62, N.Y. Economic Club)

The Federal Reserve controls how much money is issued so it can help stabilize the economy partly because "the issuers may have, and in the case of government paper, always have a direct interest in lowering the value of the currency, because it is the medium by which their own debts are computed." (John Mill) They'd feel different if they were creditors instead of debtors because "creditors have better memories than debtors." (Jim Howell, 1659)

Fortunately for Liberals, "the attractiveness of financing by debt issue to the elected politicians is obvious. Borrowing allows spending that will gain immediate political payoffs without incurring any political costs." (James Buchanan, the Deficit and American Democracy)

Many Liberal economists blame Reagan and Bush for all our economic troubles. But will not agree that "an economist is someone who cannot see something working in practice without asking if it works in theory." (Unknown) Or, that, economics is a very subjective science whose data is affected by many variables that affect the economy in both clear and unclear ways forming a compound that cannot be separated. And that "if you took all the economists in the country and laid them end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion." (George Bernard Shaw) The importance of economics to politics has grown tremendously in this century. In a 1932 campaign speech in Brooklyn, President Roosevelt castigated President Hoover for not balancing his budget. If they could see that the deficit is now measured in Trillions they'd spin in their graves.

"Many representatives in the current House leadership, including Chairman Rodenkousky {(D), Georgia}, have said for years that we must raise taxes to lower the deficit. Many of them have poor spending records, and always seek to raise taxes to support higher spending and more and more government regulations. We've only to look back to 1990 when a tax hike not only did not reduce the deficit, but nearly doubled it from $152 Billion in 1989, to 270 in 1991. The revenue estimates were low and the economy floundered. With respect to the stock market and the economy and future prosperity Clinton's tax plan must be defeated. Senator Bob Dole {(R), Kansas}, Ross Perot and Jack Kemp must combine efforts to get it scrapped and come up with a new one that encourages investment and capitol formation and then the stock market can perform beautifully over the long haul. Clinton's tax bill must be defeated. I have never seen a time in history when higher taxes across the board and regulations did any good for jobs or the stock market." (Lawrence Kudlow, Chief Economist, Bear Sterns and Company)

To defend his budget President Clinton said, "Let's not lose sight of what's been done. This program cut spending, raised revenues, invests in jobs, and cuts the deficit. And has already by its advocacy in passing contributed to bringing interest rates to their lowest rates in 20 years, a seven year high in home buying. For the first time in 18 months unemployment is under 7%, and 755,000 jobs in four months. I think that's something to be proud of. I don't understand why people aren't glad that those consequences are flowing from these efforts."

"First of all, the plan is not in effect yet. Secondly, new home sales were up 21.5% in 4/93, but are now down 21% in 5/93. The leading economic indicators were up .2% in 4/93 and are now down .3% in 5/93. Consumer confidence is down 3%, from 61.9 in 4/93, to 58.9 in 5/93." (Rush Limbaugh)

Many liberal politicians lie when saying things such as it is only temporary. We had better remember that "nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program." (Milton Freidman, Economist and Nobel Prize Winner) Or "you spend a billion dollars here or there and sooner or later it adds up to real money." (former Illinois Senator, Ed Berkson)

Some Liberals are so locked into a Socialist way of thinking that they believe things like a college education are a God given right. In Spring, 1991 CUNY students seized several campuses for two weeks to protest tuition hikes. A student called the Barry Gray Radio Show and said, "I'm an Accounting major and I figured out that if corporate taxes are raised for every company making over one billion dollars we'd be ahead of the game even if 25% of them left New York!"

This is a clear example of just how many liberals think. There is no thought about how many thousands of jobs would be lost short & long term. They don’t "see the tree through the forest."

*Many liberals feel that a gas tax would solve all our money troubles. They believed Perot when he said, "An extra ten cent a year gas tax for five years will eliminate the deficit." That is a very shortsighted view of things. No one mentioned that many things would be affected indirectly. Many necessities such as food are driven to warehouses and then to stores. Higher fuel costs would be passed directly on to the consumer in higher prices. President Clinton tries to justify and minimize it by breaking it down to pennies at the pump. But he does not mention that he signed a Medicare bill authorizing $1.3 billion in additional spending for 1993 alone.

In fact, *at a 1992 presidential debate a man told Clinton "We're your kids." And asked him, "What will you do to provide for us if you're elected?" While alms for the poor is admirable "the offer of alms increases the supply of beggars." (Simon Newcomb) Government should encourage people to be independent, self-sufficient adults, rather than constantly seeking handouts! Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and you feed him for life. "That which governs least, governs best." (T. Jefferson, 1801, first Inaugural Address). "That government is best which governs not at all." (Henry Thoreau)

Few people know that before Mayor Guliani was elected "in the last 20 years, N.Y.C. payrolls increased 40%, while the population decreased by 20%" (David Osborne) Sadly, this mismanagement exists at every government level requiring higher taxes to pay for it. We already pay federal, state and city income, sur, sales, tolls, sin, property, corporate, capitol, estate, luxury, federal excise, social security, one time, minimum, alternative and a proposed value added tax on manufactured goods. Only fools would suggest a that for an ailing economy in a recession.

Unfortunately, many liberals believe and "... accept the idea that American democracy is a failed governmental system and therefore the world can only be saved by the establishment of a one world government." (Jerry Farwell)

People such as George Meany do not think much of economists. He said, "Despite the fact that Labor Secretary John Dunlop is an economist, basically I have great confidence in him." On the same subject Tom Caryle said, "It's easy to train economists. Just teach a parrot to say supply and demand." Some think that "an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday did not come true today." (Lawrence J. Peter, Peter's Quotations) If you think about it economists are blessed because "to err is human; to get paid for it is divine." (William Fruend, Economic Consultant) Others jokingly say that an economist is some one good with numbers who did not have the personality to be an accountant.

We must take a good look in the mirror and at our life style before a finger of blame at the government. "As U.S. citizens, we're consuming more than we are producing, borrowing more than we're saving and spending more than we earn. We're rapidly approaching the time to pay the Pied Piper." (Murray Weidenbaum, Rendezvous with Reality, N.Y: Basic Books, 1988, P.4)

The North American Free Trade Agreement
Many liberals opposed NAFTA because they feel it will hurt America by allowing companies to move to Mexico to save labor costs. Some make good points such as "just because something is good for business does not necessarily mean it is good for people." (David Axelrod)

Where would the US auto industry be today without Japanese competition? Raising tariffs to stifle competition helped the big three American auto makers get away with building inferior cars like the 1972, Ford Pinto: it exploded if rear ended because they did not want to spend $24 per car for shields. Or, that Toyota offered four- cylinder, 16 valve engines in 1987, while Ford has not yet offered it in 1995. Why? They have a 24 valve, six cylinder engines, although, it was unavailable with an automatic transmission, for the first few years. This causes many consumers feel that "I can walk over to Toyota and get more bang for my buck." (Harvey Braverman) Why should US consumers have to settle for inferior work/ craftsmanship simply because our companies are unable or unwilling to keep up with technology and produce superior -merchandise. It is a dog-eat-dog- world where only the fittest survive. Protectionism is not a solution to competition. We once the leading industrial power in the world and can be again. It is up to US businesses to become more competitive by establishing long term goals and making employees a working partner in industry.

In the 1970's, General Motors built the Chevy Chevette with an aluminum block engine that would overheat often and cause major damage. And Chrysler borrowed money from the federal government to avert bankruptcy in 1979.

Japan beat us at our own game: constant improvement. An American businessman, the late Ed Demmings went there in the 1970's when U.S companies would not listen to him. All they saw was money. Stockholders always want higher quarterly returns v. Japan, who sees the next quarter century. They were so grateful they created a very prestigious award in his honor. If not for Japanese competition Americans would be forced to drive inferior cars. We cannot live in a vacuum and be isolationists in this fast paced, ever paced high tech world. Japan is already beating us in an economic and industrial war. If we are not a major trading partner in international markets we will wake up one day to find ourselves a third world nation unable to compete with European and Asian alliances. That day may come sooner than we think!

Progress cannot be halted for anyone or thing! In the long run NAFTA will help us in many ways. It will reduce the number of illegal aliens. And the burden they place upon the economy by decreasing the need for border guards and patrols, reduced welfare rolls, emergency rooms costs for the illegal aliens who cannot afford health care and the jobs they work off the books and do not pay income taxes.

Unfortunately, "imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than U.S. exports, cutting the American trade surplus with Mexico for the first quarter by 50%. The numbers are the first to measure the impact of NAFTA since it implication on January 1, 1994.

"The trade imbalance between the two countries has sharpened antagonism between organized labor, which opposed NAFTA for fear of losing U.S. jobs, and leaders in business and government, who claimed NAFTA would make Mexico a huge market for U.S. goods.

*"U.S. exports to Mexico rose 15.7%, to a record $11.85 billion in the first quarter compared with a comparable quarter last year. Mexican imports rose 22.5%, to a record $11.29 billion. That narrowed U.S. quarter trade surplus with Mexico by 45.1%, to $560 millon.

"Both sides agree that a quarter is not enough time to determine a long-term trend and that it is difficult to distinguish the effects of the trade pact from other courses of steadily increasing commerce between the two nations. Indeed, many shipments in the first quarter reflected plans made before it was approved in November.

"Many economists expected greater exports to Mexico due to a strong Peso which makes U.S. goods more affordable and rapidly falling trade barriers." (N.Y. Times, U.S. - Mexico Trade Advances Sharply, Under New Accord, by Al Myerson, p.1)

Perot & United We Stand sought a formal investigation into the billions spent passing it. Many Liberal Democrats say they oppose it because it’s bad for the US. Yet, forgot that from 1983-93 they received contributions from Labor Political Action Committees. In the greatest amount of donations they are Representatives David Boniar, (D) Missouri, $867,323. He said, "All the 'fat cats' who put this deal through in Mexico, Canada & the U.S. are going to be richer & safe. It’s the workers in all three countries who are going to suffer." Bob Torricelli, (D) New Jersey, $508,345. "It’s for all these reasons, which by now should be abundantly clear that I am voting no on NAFTA." Sander Levin, (D) MI, $412,340. "This bitter battle over NAFTA is not one that had to be & that is the tragedy of this. The best answer is to renegotiate & do it right." Dick Gephart, (D) Missouri, $755,109. ...a Republican President reached what I think is a Republican treaty & he foisted it off on a Democratic administration. He didn’t know whether or not it was coming. The truth is he shouldn’t have reached the agreement." Tom Manton, (D) NY, $598,927. ...Mr. Speaker, we need a trade agreement that promotes job security & growth in the US. NAFTA’s not it & I urge its defeat." Marcy Kaputur, (D) Ohio, $620,074. "What's going on here is wrong! I urge the president to win it on merits, not pork! Rosa DeLauro, (D) Connecticut, $418,875. "It’s hard to imagine that the best we can do & the best NAFTA we can negotiate is going to cost U.S. jobs & help Japan's auto industry. I urge my colleagues to weigh their decision carefully and vote no!"

The explosion of the internet and web undeniably prove that we live in an ever shrinking world. I doubt it, but maybe if they foresaw this they would have not resisted it so much.

No comments: