Supply-side principles for the hard times

Townhall ^ | 9/12/05 | Jack Kemp

[Crackingham]

It is disappointing that the Republican Party has not institutionalized the supply-side principles of low tax rates, benign regulations, rule-based monetary policy, liberalized trade and prudent government spending. Republican politicians campaign for election on these principles, but when they get into office, they abandon them. President Bush has been a stalwart on pro-growth policies for our nation, but Congressional Republicans have been mute on what needs to be done going forward.

Even when they adhere to the principles in their voting records, many Republicans are hesitant to evangelize on their behalf, which is necessary if they are to be institutionalized as the foundation of national policy. And they are not inclined to support pro-growth, supply-side policies during periods of national emergency, such as Katrina, when they are required most.

As Adam Smith said, "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of wealth from the lowest but peace, easy taxes, sound money and a tolerable administration of justice, all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things." Smith reminds us that the keys to recovery from nature's wrath and governments' incompetence are the same principles that President Reagan used to recover from the economic stagnation and social malaise of the 1970s. These principles are necessary over the long run to ensure lasting prosperity and essential during times of crisis to restore normalcy and increase prosperity.

Budget deficits have few long-term economic consequences unless they reach proportions far larger than anything we have seen or are likely to see, even with the war in Iraq and the national calamity of Katrina. The deficit is the consequence of government spending too much on nonessential, often harmful programs and slow rates of growth.

[DeeOhGee]

President Bush has been a stalwart on pro-growth policies for our nation, but Congressional Republicans have been mute on what needs to be done going forward.

Not stalwart enough to veto a spending bill or two. As Kemp himself points out " "Budget deficits have few long-term economic consequences unless they reach proportions far larger than anything we have seen or are likely to see..."

Well, they have reached those proportions, and so has the debt. We will reach the point of not being able to balance the budget no matter how much revenue we raise from lower taxes. We have got to control spending.

[Billthedrill]

It is excruciatingly difficult for anyone to cut down the size of government. Reagan campaigned on it and was, I think, perfectly sincere, but even he couldn't do it. Bush is simply not a small-government crusader - he's a lot of other good things, but he isn't that, and even if he were, he'd find out as Reagan did that foreign affairs take precedence, especially the sort that have enemies blowing up buildings.

The real problem is that Congress, who really does control the purse-strings, won't take action unless it is led by an executive that can take the heat for cutting their constituents' pork. If a minority of them try it on their own they'll only manage to kill their chances for re-election without accomplishing anything, and that's why they don't.

[spinestein]

[Bush is simply not a small-government crusader - he's a lot of other good things, but he isn't that...]

While I support many of President Bush's policies, his "compassionate conservatism" ideology (which he ran on) was a tip off that he would be generous with federal handouts. But as disappointed as I am, it's a given that we got the much better deal than with Gore or Kerry.





[The real problem is that Congress, who really does control the purse-strings, won't take action unless it is led by an executive that can take the heat for cutting their constituents' pork. If a minority of them try it on their own they'll only manage to kill their chances for re-election without accomplishing anything, and that's why they don't.]

This whole paragraph is RIGHT ON TARGET, but the second sentence here actually tells me who's ultimately to blame for the problem of irresponsible congressional spending. The vast majority of voting Americans LIKE the idea of getting free s*** from the government, paid for by rich people who can afford to relinquish some of their dough, and legislators who see to it that that trend continues will get re-elected more often than someone who preaches about fiscal responsibility and the government living within its means.

Those of us who do value that ideology, can't hope to achieve success in this area from our elected officials until we can convince our fellow voters to support and reward such candidates both before and after they're elected to office.

[Hank Rearden]

Lots of excusin' goin' on, attempting to paper over Republican Party lies and liars.

[claptrap]

Politicians spend like their wealthiest constituent/patrons
want them to spend, to change the employees behavior you need to get at their bosses behavior!

[wita]

Hank, you forgot the /sarcasm. Didn't you? If not, I think a good lying quote would be in order at a minimum.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Since all politicians in power in America have surrendered to the growing monster of socialism, we can't have a very bright future.

The government is headed toward taking every dime of our earned wages.

As working just for the privilege of paying taxes looks more and more foolish, should we all simply concentrate on being on the receiving end of government giveaways and take as much from government as we can before the whole mess collapses?

[DH]

Career politicians.  Until we get rid of career politicians we will never control our government.

Sure, they tell you what you want to hear while in "election mode" and when they are safely in office again, they go back to the most important work in their lives...insuring they get elected again.  How?  By telling the sheep what they want to hear again.

Strict term limits will help to turn the tide but won't be the complete answer.  The only true means to cleanse our filthy, corrupt political system is to pay each citizen their gross income in cash and at the end of each year make them pay ALL taxes back to the government from the cash they received.  Only then, will the sheep realize the folly of voting time and time again for the same career politician.  The rage and howls of anger would be staggering.

Remove the "smoke and mirrors" and let the people see what they really get.

[DancesWithBolsheviks]

Or, alternatively, we could teach accounting as fundamental knowledge that each student must have before graduating from high school...

[Hank Rearden]

How about "We'll eliminate the depts. of Education and Energy, get PBS off the taxpayer's back, reduce taxes and spending. We believe in limited government; government is the problem."

[wita]

Surely you didn't believe all that hype was going to take place yesterday. Sounds good on the radio but, you have 435 congressmen and 100 senators that you have to get to stop laughing to get your bill past them. It isn't lying to want to eliminate governmental depts. It is an idea, repeated often enough, might actually come to pass when the time is right. Maybe a dream more than an idea. The best example I can thing of is the quote "434 to Ron Paul". I don't think a freeper of you stature needs a written explanation.