That would have been an interesting debate.
That would have been an interesting debate.
Socialists in Congress? Click on the zeppelin, Grasshopper.
You have mail.
President Clinton claims that two million new jobs were created per year during his watch. But when analysts measure it in terms of creating full-time jobs, the Clinton administration's record is that of an also-ran.
Further, job growth should be judged relative to the number of workers. And the working-age population is now almost 9 percent larger than it was in the Reagan years.
Moreover, the economic expansion began before Clinton assumed office. And even some Democrats agree with economists who point to the dampening effects of the Clinton income-tax rate hikes targeted at the key job producing sector of the American economy: small business.
In 1993, the Democrat-controlled Joint Economic Committee of Congress -- seeking to justify the so-called "economic stimulus package" -- warned that Clinton's fiscal policy would "continue to exert downward pressure on economic activity throughout the next five years." The committee was unanimous, and included such liberal notables as Ted Kennedy.
Source: Editorial, "It's Clintonomics, Stupid," Investor's Business Daily, April 11, 1996.
In the debate over tax levels and tax cuts, economic growth and family incomes, performance comparisons between the Reagan years and the recent Clinton years should provide solid guideposts to future policy. Taxes were decreased during the Reagan years; increased during Clinton's tenure.
Here are a few key statistics:
These changes occurred within the context of a labor force increasing at a 1.8 percent rate during 1983-89 and 0.8 percent during 1993-95.
Growth in the first quarter of 1996 also happened to be 2.3 percent, although real GDP was only 1.7 percent higher than a year before.
Slower growth of output naturally results in slower growth of real income. And when people are unable to better their lot, worker frustration sets in -- a phenomenon now being reported and examined in the press.
Two additional key comparisons should be noted:
Economists warn that marginal tax rates are much too high, and the tax system is horribly biased against savings and investment.
The predictable result has been little or no progress in livings standards during the past seven years.
Source: Alan Reynolds (Hudson Institute), "Clintonomics Doesn't Measure Up," Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996.
The evidence is in and the results are clear: family incomes increase when government lowers taxes and reduces the regulatory burden, according to economic experts.
Reagan's abundantly successful policies were simple: cut marginal tax rates to reward work, investment, savings and risk-taking. Force Washington to join the productivity revolution by aggressively chopping away at the federal budget and regulations. But these policies were reversed in the Bush-Clinton years through tax increases and a new era of government regulation, highlighted by such measures as the Americans With Disabilities Act, amendments to the Clear Air Act, and Clinton's record tax hike which boosted the marginal tax rate from 28 to 40 percent.
In the Reagan era, low-earner households improved their lot. Households headed by blacks, for example, saw their income grow 14 percent -- versus 10 percent for those headed by whites. And the incomes of women grew faster than those of men.
Source: Stephen Moore (Cato Institute) and John Silva (Zurich Kemper Investments), "Middle-Class Blues," Investor's Business Daily, April 4, 1996.