One Nation Under Debt

by Burt on February 8, 2010

When we look at the runaway deficits of the last few years (especially the last one year), we can see the dangers of inflation, the ruin of our currency, and even the potential bankruptcy we may face.  I want to focus on something else that is often neglected–the sense of injustice in the tax system to pay off the debt.  Why is it unjust?  Because almost half of all Americans pay no income taxes.  What that means is that these non-taxpayers have every incentive to pressure politicians for government services because the burden of paying for these services will fall on others.  That fact compounds the problem, and contributes to a real sense of injustice–others get services free, and I have to pay for them.  Certainly that contradicts the spirit of the 14th amendment, with its stirring promise that no state could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

The other problem with the “I get government services and you pay for them” mentality is that basing a tax system mainly on wealth taxes is unstable.  What about recessions when rich people lose wealth and withdraw investments?  Then revenue sharply declines, and deficits get larger.  In the current tax system, the top one percent of taxpayers pay almost 40 percent of all income taxes.  In California, which has a highly progressive state income tax, 84 percent of taxes are collected from people earning over $100,000 per year, according to Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation.  When those taxpayers suffer in recession, the whole state budget is thrown into jeopardy.

Our Founders were wise.  They encouraged a revenue system based on tariffs on imports and excise taxes (especially on vices such as tobacco and whiskey).  Those are indirect taxes, and they are paid by people who purchase certain goods.  If you can afford the product, you pay a small tax.  Such a system is broad-based, and the revenue generated does not fluctuate wildly from year to year.  Let’s never forget that under that system, the U. S. paid off the entire national debt by 1836.  I salute our Founders for their wisdom.

{ 0 comments }

This article was originally posted on BigGovernment.com. You can get to it by clicking HERE.

No president of the 20th century had a more positive and enduring influence than Ronald Reagan, who was born 99 years ago today. Other presidents, from Wilson to FDR, exceeded Reagan in their impact, but much of it was negative. Sure, they won wars, but they almost destroyed the American economy as well.

Reagan, by contrast, won the Cold War and also revived the American economy from decades of abuse. He was successful both at home and abroad.

Since President Reagan left the White House in 1989, the U. S. has stumbled, so it is wise to ponder why Reagan did so well. Was it natural intelligence or careful political training? Not really—and that fact both galls and baffles his critics. Reagan was a C student at lowly Eureka College and from there he went into small-town broadcasting, and then to Hollywood. He didn’t try to be governor of California until he was 55 years old.

Reagan had three parts to his genius. First, he was a visionary; he believed that people wanted freedom and would do well when more of it was given to them. Whether he was undermining the Soviets, challenging an unlawful union, or deregulating oil production he tried to move in a consistent direction of greater freedom and less government. According to Dinesh D’Souza, “Reagan’s greatness derives in large part from the fact that he was a visionary—a conceptualizer who was able to see the world differently from the way it was.” Reagan knew where he wanted to go: Jimmy Carter, by contrast, had multiple plans to create energy, to generate revenue, and to cut inflation. Often they were contradictory; all of them failed. Reagan was more consistent because he had vision: He knew where he wanted to go and how he wanted to get there.

Second, Reagan had character, and in the eyes of America’s Founders, character was a necessary ingredient for greatness. Reagan stood for a set of ideas, and when trouble came he looked not to polls, but instead he applied courage, kindness, and persistence to achieve his ends. At the end of his presidency, his critics—from Sam Donaldson to Ted Kennedy—admitted that Reagan had changed the world and had done so with candor and honesty.

Third, Reagan was teachable. That trait was essential. If one has vision and character, he must also be teachable to make his life flow in a constructive direction. Course corrections are needed because none of us has life figured out at age thirty. We have to believe in something and we have force of character, but we also have to be ready to modify.

When Reagan reached adulthood, he supported FDR for president. People (like those in his family) were hungry and FDR gave them jobs. Big government seemed to be an answer. But as he grew older and worked with the public he saw the tyranny of federal power. Also, he began to realize that no nation could spend its way into prosperity.

Reagan had lived through the 1920s and 1930s and he reconsidered the evidence for cutting tax rates. The Twenties were the prosperous decade of tax cuts and the Thirties were the depressed decade of tax hikes. He began to believe that connection was more than coincidence. When the U. S. economy went into to a tailspin in the 1970s, Reagan saw the price controls under Nixon and the restrictions on oil production under Carter as being a problem, not a solution.

Free up the economy, Reagan argued, by cutting tax rates. In the midst of the Carter fiasco, during a radio show on October 18, 1977, Reagan pointed to history to give his countrymen lessons. “We’ve tried spending our way to prosperity for more than four decades and it hasn’t worked. . . . Twice in this century, in the 1920’s and in the early 60’s we cut taxes substantially and the stimulant to the economy was substantial and immediate.”

Reagan was teachable. He had modified his ideas, and he would use his vision and character to implement these tax cuts when he became president. Sure enough, he brought rates down for all taxpayers and, as he predicted, revenue to the government actually increased when we gave more liberty to Americans to invest in their country. This dose of freedom was somewhat expanded by capital gains cuts under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. From 1982 to 2007, the U. S. economy more than doubled in economic growth, and we led the world with an ever increasing standard of living and relatively low unemployment.

We owe that freedom and prosperity that so many of us experienced during those years to the vision, the character, and the teachable qualities of President Ronald Reagan.

{ 1 comment }

Burt in Boise

by Burt on January 29, 2010

I will be speaking at the Lincoln Day Dinner on February 18th in Boise, Idaho.  If you are in the area and would like to attend you can find more information at www.adacountylincolnday.com/.

{ 0 comments }

Burt on Beck 1/29

by Burt January 29, 2010

Here are a couple of clips from the Glenn Beck show today on FOX News. 
Clip1
CLip2

Read the full article →

Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS)

by Burt January 27, 2010

Almost unnoticed among the leaked proposals in the president’s forthcoming State of the Union message is the doubling of a child care tax credit for families earning less than $85,000 per year.   It is one more example of targeting bribes to specific voter groups; and, in turn, it is one more example of how increasing [...]

Read the full article →

Two Things to Look for in the State of the Union Message

by Burt January 26, 2010

Early hints about President Obama’s State of the Union message on Wednesday reveal two points of interest.  First, he will follow FDR in trying to win votes by targeting key groups for government subsidies.  FDR was famous for this kind of bribery:  Give money to farmers not to produce, he would say, and then build [...]

Read the full article →

All Hail Massachusetts

by Burt January 25, 2010

Before World War II, Massachusetts was a politically conservative state.  In 1932, under Democrat Governor Joseph Ely, Massachusetts was one of six states refusing to take federal aid for welfare when it was offered for the first time in U. S. history.  Instead, Massachusetts met the social needs of its citizens by raising money within [...]

Read the full article →

Follow My Tweets!

by admin January 23, 2010

Believe it or not, I’m an academic who Twitters. This is a new experience for me, so we will all see how it goes.
For those of you on Twitter, you can follow me @BurtFolsom.

Read the full article →

Massachusetts Speaks

by admin January 20, 2010

“He’s shoving this healthcare bill down our throats!”  Thus spoke one disenchanted Massachusetts voter during the special Senate election on Tuesday.  That voter was upset at the dictatorial procedures being used in the House and Senate to pass the president’s health care bill.   And that voter’s message was heard.
The Scott Brown upset victory in Massachusetts [...]

Read the full article →

Why Does Government Control Not Work?

by admin January 14, 2010

In the debate over universal healthcare, one question has rarely been asked of its supporters:  “What examples from U. S. history support the transfer of funds and power from private to government control?”  In other words, do we have historical precedents for subsidizing businesses, or having them taken over by government, which then improved American [...]

Read the full article →