“Where I am not understood, it shall be concluded that something very useful and profound is couched underneath.” --Jonathan Swift
Saturday, August 24, 2013
John F Kennedy Addresses the Current Economic Dilemma
Very little is said these days about the economic
opinions and actions of one of the great Democrats, John F Kennedy.Popular commentary dwells on the fluff of his
Camelot days, a term invented by Theodore White in the few days after Kennedy's
funeral, and one still hears of the supposed Kennedy plan to withdraw troops from Viet Nam, both post-mortem, since refuted.From the savvy "Let us continue …" campaign strategy of Lyndon
Johnson after the assassination, including the 'Goldwater will use the bomb'
spot, to the present day, Democrats use the Kennedy administration as a Golden
Age of American democracy.
But with our current catastrophic economic policy, with
massive debt getting larger and the only plan being to make it larger still,
Kennedy is not the source that Democrats rely on to make their point about
larger government being the panacea for all social ills.
Neil Cavuto unearthed the following exchange in an audio
segment.It exists today as an outtake from
an NBC News interview with Kennedy on 9 September 1963, just over two months
from the day that he would be assassinated, by the iconic Chet Huntley and
David Brinkley. (The relevant portion in the video is between 7:00 and 9:30.) Compare Kennedy's take
on a major across-the-board tax cut, a move opposed by his own party, and compare it to today's eat-the-rich tax policy of Obama:
Brinkley: Mr President, Harry Truman was out for his walk
this morning and he said he did not think we should have a tax cut until we get
the budget balanced, and the other day Senator Humphrey was saying in the
Senate that what the American people think is true is often more important than
what actually is true.What, in view of
that, what do you think about cutting taxes while the budget is still in deficit?
Kennedy: The reason the government is in deficit is
because you've got more than 4 million people unemployed, and because for the
last 5 years you've had rather sluggish growth, much slower than any other
Western country.
I'm in favor of a tax cut
because I'm concerned that if we don't get the tax cut that we are going to
have an increase in unemployment and that we may move into a period of economic
downturn.
We had a
recession in '58, a recession in 1960.We've done pretty well since then, but we still have over 4 million
unemployed.And I think this tax cut can
give the stimulus to our economy over the next 2 or 3 years. I think it will provide for greater national
wealth.I think it will reduce
unemployment.I think it will strengthen
our gold position.So I think that the
proposal we've made is responsible and in the best interests of the country.
Huntley: The affirmative economic response to Britain's
tax cut seemed to be almost immediate.Would it be as immediate in this country, do you think?
Kennedy: I think it would be.Interestingly enough, the British came
forward with their tax cut in April, passed it within a month.They have experienced economic benefits from
it.Unemployment's been substantially
reduced.
They
have a larger deficit than we do.Yet
the only criticism was that it wasn't enough.Every… nearly every economist has supported us.I think it's in the best economic interests
of the country, unless this country just wants to drag along, have 5 or 6
million people unemployed, have profits reduced, have economic prospects… have
our budget unbalanced by a much larger proportion.The largest unbalanced budget in the history
of this country was in 1958 because of the recession -- $12.5 billion.
The fact
of the matter is that, of course, government expenditures do go up in every
administration, but the country's wealth goes up.President Eisenhower spent $185 billion more
than President Truman.But the country
was much wealthier.It is much wealthier
now than it was in the last year of President Eisenhower's administration.
I think our economic situation
can be very good.I think what we have
proposed is a responsible answer to a problem which has been part of our
economic life for 5 or 6 years, and that is slack, failure to grow
sufficiently, relatively high unemployment.And if you put that together with the fact that we have to find 35,000
new jobs a week, I think the situation in this country calls for a tax
reduction this year.[pauses in
original]
Times have changed from the early 1960s, certainly. Kennedy cites the public concern with the unemployment rate, which at the time of the interview was at 5.4%, compared to 7.4% now. If the economy had to grow by 35,000 jobs per week then, it must grow, using the same calculations, by 75,000 jobs now. A 1963 dollar is worth $7.55 now. There are more variables to compare, but that will give you a start.
That's worth knowing, thanks. Too bad Obama is too stupid (or too venal, take your pick) to follow JFK's advice. I confess up front that I never liked Kennedy and gagged on his deification after the assassination. Very dishonest fellow who campaigned on an alleged "missile gap" which was true only in the sense that we had more missiles than the Soviets did, not the other way around. Of course my parents were Republicans and some of their dislike of him rubbed off on me. But this cut taxes in time of recession is not, uh, rocket science. Cut taxes and cut back on regulations. It has worked every time, growing away the deficit, as well. Nowadays, apparently, the Democrats just don't care. They'd rather have the little people on food stamps so they can hold the rich people's feet to the fire. Not to actually damage the rich but to force them to pony up more of those bribes known as "campaign contributions."
Too true. Cutting taxes to really stimulate the economy has been generally considered a Republican tactic, and left unsaid is that the fact that is has been a successful one, such as under Presidents Reagan and Coolidge, but also under Governors Pataki, Perry and (yes) George Bush. But for a Democrat to use the same idea? That fact needs to be cleansed from the public airwaves.
Comments are welcome and discussion is open and encouraged. I expect that there will be some occasional disagreement (heaven knows why) or welcome clarification and embellishment, and such are freely solicited.
Consider that all such comments are in the public domain and are expected to be polite, even while contentious. I will delete comments which are ad hominem, as well as those needlessly profane beyond the realm of sputtering incredulity in reaction to some inanity, unless attributed to a quote.
Links to other sources are fine so long as they further the argument or expand on the discussion. All such comments and links are the responsibility of the commenter, and the mere presence herein does not necessarily constitute my agreement.
I will also delete all comments that link to a commercial site.
That's worth knowing, thanks. Too bad Obama is too stupid (or too venal, take your pick) to follow JFK's advice. I confess up front that I never liked Kennedy and gagged on his deification after the assassination. Very dishonest fellow who campaigned on an alleged "missile gap" which was true only in the sense that we had more missiles than the Soviets did, not the other way around. Of course my parents were Republicans and some of their dislike of him rubbed off on me. But this cut taxes in time of recession is not, uh, rocket science. Cut taxes and cut back on regulations. It has worked every time, growing away the deficit, as well. Nowadays, apparently, the Democrats just don't care. They'd rather have the little people on food stamps so they can hold the rich people's feet to the fire. Not to actually damage the rich but to force them to pony up more of those bribes known as "campaign contributions."
ReplyDeleteToo true. Cutting taxes to really stimulate the economy has been generally considered a Republican tactic, and left unsaid is that the fact that is has been a successful one, such as under Presidents Reagan and Coolidge, but also under Governors Pataki, Perry and (yes) George Bush. But for a Democrat to use the same idea? That fact needs to be cleansed from the public airwaves.
Delete