Gravity Defying Economics

"Failed economic policies" has become the new catchphrase for the Obama campaign as they continue to try to link John McCain to George Bush. It is telling that there are no details provided along with the statements. McCain let Obama completely skate on this issue during the final presidential debate. Specifically which Bush economic policies is Obama referring to? This line of attack has now started spilling over into other races where it is consistently used to bludgeon Republican candidates. I still don't know what they are trying to say.

The perfect Clinton economy that Obama remembers was doused in jet fuel and set on fire in September of 2001. Any hopes that the 'dot-com' boom would come back were permanently dashed at the same time. Plans for rebuilding individual wealth focused on real-estate and we saw that industry ramp up over the years to finally come crashing down as a house of straw. There is plenty of blame to go around for the problems with the mortgage industry, but rational people would agree that the problems didn't arise as part of "Bush's failed economic policies."

Fighting the war on Islamic extremism has undoubtedly stressed our economy tremendously. This should be a moot point since Obama does not plan to stop spending the money once the war in Iraq is over. Part of Obama's calculus for paying for his new programs with "spending cuts" includes the spending he would cut from the war. That's right, Obama intends to permanently spend at war-time levels, just not on war. I'm sure that he will cut spending in other areas to support the defense of our republic if it should be necessary again in the future.

Bush continues to catch flak for his "tax-cuts for the rich". At the time of the Bush tax-cuts they were the only raise I had seen in two years. Though I would have liked to see more, I don't resent the bulk of the tax-cuts going to those that fuel the engines of industry. The tax-cut was not provided so that we'd all have a little spreadin-around-money. The tax-cut was provided to boost the economy. It is a matter of recorded historical fact that the tax-cut was good for the economy and helped generate record tax revenues. The fundamental Reaganomics principal of lowering taxes to increase revenues was proven again. I don't resent my fellow countrymen at the upper end of the pay-scale getting a tax-break. It didn't cost me anything and it was good for the economy. Frankly I'm pleased when anybody gets their taxes reduced. It's not their job to buy you stuff, be happy for them.

I'm not happy with Bush's big-government deficit spending. Most of that was done under his centrist mantle so I find it ironic that Democrats are beating him up for it now. His stubborn refusal to pull out his veto pen will always be one of my biggest disappointments with Bush. I don't see the Democrats or Obama turning it around to become advocates of limited government. Obama can go through the budget line by line, but he doesn't have a line item veto. He doesn't have much of a reputation for going against his party either, perhaps he'll suddenly change if he becomes president.

Corporations that make more profits due to lower taxes have more money to reinvest in their business and employ more folks. The idea that an employer that makes more money employs more people is pretty basic. Most of us have witnessed this over and over. The idea that the government can take more money from corporations, then take their cut off the top to fund the bureaucracy, then distribute it to the people they think deserve it so that it can "trickle up" to the employers defies logic, and gravity.