Some on the left claim that tax cuts harm economic growth, as we see that GWB cut taxes and the economy went to hell in recent years. In addition, they point out that Bill Clinton had a 1993 tax increase, yet the economy was strong in the following years, which means raising tax helps the economy.

Claiming the above is as honest as me saying that, “Look: We had a few years of record Federal budget surpluses and the 9/11 attack took place right after it. Therefore, the surpluses caused the attacks.” I mean, you cant just take any event that took place leading up to another event and say that the first coused the second.

Now back to Tax Cuts: Wall Mart may have the best prices in town to lure customers, but if one of their locations has nasty staff and water dripping into the store, few people will shop there – regardless the prices. Same goes when you have destructive political/economic policies. They can outrun the potential benefits of low tax rates! This is what happened within a year after the Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007. The economy until then – due to Bush Tax Cuts – was doing just fine, but with a change of policies, the economy tanked.

In addition, when a retailer is on good footing and customers are already shopping often, the owner can raise prices – with a limit – and people will still show up. Same was with Clinton in 1993: He ran for office when the economy was already out of recession. The stock market rebounded and the Unemployment Rate dropped by mid-1992.  The economy gained 110,000 jobs on a monthly average in the seven months leading up to his election. So indeed, by the time Clinton decided to raise prices (tax) on his consumers, they were anyway out on the streets buying goods. 

As for the correlation between the Surplus and the 9/11 attacks… come to think of it: If Clinton would have been busier fighting terrorism than to slash military and intelligence spending, maybe the attacks – at last – would have been avoided, which makes me think that Surpluses (created in part by the above slashing) indeed – helped- cause the 9/11 attacks…

Sign up here to receive FREE my posts by E-Mail. Only your e-mail address is needed. It takes 42 seconds. Posts arrive only once a day.

During the Bush years, we heard often from the Left that Bush divided the country. To me this statement didn’t make sense, because for example in 1996, President Clinton got barely half of the popular vote during his reelection campaign, while the other half voted against him. What is that if not a divided country?

Besides, if “the system” is that it is the president, and not his critics that divide the country, we should assume that President Obama is at fault for dividing the country following his unifying win of last year November. Don’t you agree?

You see, when Obama came onto the 2008 stage, a lot of people were excited for Him, including people on the right, and count me as one of them. Obama appeared as a fresh person with an open mind to political issues who is willing to work across party lines through giving up some of his own to the other side. I even donated $36 to the campaign (due to a computer mistake, the charge was 2X$36) and signed up to get e-mails from Him, but then, then His true colors came out (his radical associations, spreading the wealth mentality), and Obama lost me and millions others thus dividing the nation again along ideological lines.

Once coming into office, Obama got back the good will of a majority of voters, as reflected in opinion polls earlier this year. But then he took over huge firms (Bush bailed them out, but Obama took them over); dictating executive pay; increasing federal spending well-above the already-crazy Bush spending; apologizing for America worldwide; going soft on the Red Russians; and the list has barely started. With all this, it is no wonder that the Obama’s approval rating is down to the low-mid fifties, which means the country is divided again.

If Obama will continue down this route, He will indeed unite this nation – unite it against him.

Republicans and Democrats both want to win next week’s gubernatorial election in New Jersey. The Dems want to hold on to that seat, and of course nationally they want to show that they can win now an election, despite the public’s dissatisfaction with President Obama on economic issues. The Republicans are yearning for a big win following their ’06 and ’08 defeats, and the Independent candidate in the race is there for, em… I have no clue.

The Dems are spending millions of dollars and are bringing in all the star power they got, from former President Clinton to Obama, and ended with VP Biden, to give the Dems a win in a Dem State. So even IF the Dems keep NJ, it will be done only after pulling all the capital in their book, a thing they cannot repeat in all important ’10 races.

Wining NJ only under the above circumstances in addition to a third party candidate that helps the Dems, will confirm the Democrats’ biggest fear: ’10 is a tough year for them, as of now. In other words, the Dems might as well not spend there so much capital just to have a nice 2010 cover story, because even with a win, the writing on the wall for 2010 is for everyone to see.

Everyone in politics knows the phrase that was coined in ‘992 by James Carvil, the political mastermind of then-Arkansas Governor and presidential candidates Bill Clinton: “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” This meant to say to voters, ‘don’t get distracted by other issues. The economy is the problem now, so vote in Clinton for President.’

This phrase 17 years later is still relevant from a political and economic perspective, becouse when debating these days Reaganomics, the Left points to the weakened economy of under Bush the First, and when debating “political strategies” some point to that “”masterful” phrase which “propelled Clinton into the White House.” Both, however, are the longest-standing economic and political myths that I have ever seen.

Consider some facts:

A)  In March of ‘991, the U.S. economy was officially out of recession. In English it means, that nineteen months before Clinton won the election, the economy (GDP) was actually growing again, following a very short and light recession.

B)  You can claim that the GDP growth at the time didn’t translate into prosperity to people. Well, first, at least the economy was growing; it wasn’t in a recession as some try to believe until today. Secondly, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which in the current Stimulus Economy is a gage for success or failure, grew from a recession low of 2,398 in the week of October ‘990, to a high of 3,398 in the week of June first 1992. (The Dow didn’t have a disasters fallback as we had starting last year September, so it was not shooting radically upwards like we experience in recent months, nut it had a healthy growth).

C)  Seeing that the GDP and the Dow are not friendly to this “economy stupid” myth, you will turn to jobs. “Jobs growth is what counts in a REAL recovery.” Fine, let’s count jobs: In the last six months of Bush’s ‘992, the economy gained on a monthly average 129,000 jobs, and in the first half of ‘993, the monthly average was 208,000. Considering that jobs are a “lagging indicator,” meaning they lag the rest of the economy, it is fair to say that the healthy job growth (plus the declining Unemployment Rate) of the second half of ‘992 and the robust job growth of early ‘993, reflected a turned-around, BOOMING economy that started months before Team Clinton had its election night plans ready. While I am at it, get this: the last six months of Clinton’s ’00, the economy gained a poor monthly average of 100K, and the following half year the economy lost 73,000 jobs on a monthly basis, which confirms again that GW Bush inherited a recession, whereas Bill Clinton inherited a booming economy.

D)  Politically speaking, Bill Clinton won a poor 43% of the popular vote in ‘992, one of the weakest showings for an outside candidate, yet he still won the election, due to a third party candidate – Ross Perot running to the Right of Bush – picking up 18% of the popular vote, leaving Bush with just 37% of the vote. In other words, Carvil’s phrase resonated with only a small portion of the population, as we see that Clinton got  only 43% of the vote, of which a big chunk were African Americans who regularly vote 9-10 for Presidential Democrats, regardless the state of general affairs.