Posted on 11/11/2003 2:47:51 PM PST by ayoshida
Democrat Economics
How many times have we all heard a Democratic politician or talking head whine that this is, “the worst economy since Herbert Hoover”? It’s a bizarre reference, seeing as it seems likely that only a small percentage of the American people (and, therefore, an even smaller percentage of likely Democratic voters) know who Herbert Hoover was or what the economy was like when he was the President. It’s a little bit like Osama Bin Laden whining about the, “tragedy of Andalusia,” which is a reference to when the Moors were finally driven from Spain in 1492. I fully expect that whoever is the Democratic nominee for President will attack President Bush for having, “the worst foreign policy since James Madison,” as well as for his opposition to the free coinage of silver.
The left, using a phrase stolen from George HW Bush, attacked Ronald Reagan’s plans for the economy as ‘Voodoo economics’ because they flew in the face of conventional wisdom. However, say what you will about Reagan’s plans, they had a certain logic and consistency. Returning money from the Federal Government to the people, including ‘tax cuts for the rich’ would stimulate economic activity which, ultimately, would lead to increased prosperity for the people as well as increased revenues for the government as the GDP grew at a speedier rate.
I tried to come up with a similar pejorative for Democratic economic policies, but initially failed to come up with one simply because the economic policies being proposed by the Democratic Party make no rational sense. Rather, they are a series of carefully focus-grouped answers with only dubious connections to eachother.
Dick Gephardt has said that the three priorities of his administration will be, “jobs, jobs, and jobs” (yes, I would have thought that ‘winning the war’ might have popped up in there as well but, alas…). All major Democrats are on the same kick, attacking the supposedly catastrophic unemployment rate of 6%.
The problem with this is as such: the Democrats also want to impose upon the United States a European-style welfare state, featuring Universal Health Care and the taxes to support it. As a result of Europe’s socialism, nearly every nation in Europe has a notably higher rate of unemployment than the United States. In France, where the government has passed laws which prevent anyone from working more than thirty-five hours a week, the unemployment rate stands at 9.6%. In Germany it’s 9.7%. These, I might add, are not short-term blips, but rather evidence of what everyone knows: generous social welfare benefits create a disincentive to work. In Canada with an economy broadly similar to that of the United States, but a more extensive welfare state, has an unemployment rate of 7.6%.
Interestingly enough, this can even be found within the United States. The states with the highest rates of unemployment are not ‘poor’ states in the South. Rather, the pack is led by Oregon which, in September, featured a European-style unemployment rate of 8%, followed by Alaska (which, while far from liberal, offers substantial cash handouts) at 7.8% and Washington State, which has a 7.6% rate.
Why should Oregon have twice as much unemployment as Kansas? Why should Washington have more than double the rate of Virginia? Are Washington and Oregon poor, impoverished, dust-bowl states?
Now, liberals will claim that unemployment is so low in places like South Dakota (3.4%), Virginia (3.7%), Wyoming (4.0%), and Nebraska (4.0%) because ‘mean-spirited’ welfare policies in those places force the unemployed to take whatever jobs become available in order to survive. This is true. It is also at odds with the rest of their argument. You can’t ‘create jobs’ by advocating polices which require a permanent acceptance of high rates of unemployment.
Liberals, of course, will try to claim the mantle of the ‘Clinton record’ on the economy to prove their capability as stewards of the economy. What they omit is the fact that the only reason the economy prospered during the Clinton reign is that Bill Clinton didn’t really do anything at all to the economy during his time in office because he spent most of his time fighting scandals that he brought upon himself and a Republican Congress which was elected mostly because of popular disdain for him. Clinton inadvertently had the good sense to leave the management of the economy to the people, rather than bureaucrats in the Department of Labor.
The Democrats aren’t advocates of ‘voodoo economics’, that much is for sure: all Ronald Reagan did was end the biggest recession since the Great Depression (an actual one, mind you, not one invented and then articulated with the same force as the Reverend Jesse Jackson claiming that a strike by Piano Tuners in Bethesda, MD is ‘the new Selma), launch a decade of growth, and lay the foundation for the boom of the 1990’s.
These policies are the result of dazed, deranged, and delusional minds. Thankfully, we have one word which encompasses all three of the above. Welcome to the world of Democratic Economics.
I'll give you one: Risky Scheme.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.