Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicks
Says it all in a nutshell. Whell, you're just embarrassing yourself. Time to pull your head out of Donny's ass.
Kudlow’s core doctrine is that upper-bracket tax rates are the primary driver of economic growth, and that even minor changes in the level of taxation on the rich have enormous consequences on growth. In 1993, when Bill Clinton proposed an increase in the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, Kudlow wrote, “There is no question that Presdient Clinton’s across-the-board tax increases…will throw a wet blanket over the recovery and depress the economy’s long-run potential to grow.” This was wrong. Instead a boom ensued. Rather than question his analysis, Kudlow switched to crediting the results to the great tax-cutter, Ronald Reagan. “The politician most responsible for laying the groundwork for this prosperous era is not Bill Clinton, but Ronald Reagan,” he argued in February, 2000.
By December 2000, the expansion had begun to slow. What had happened? According to Kudlow, it meant Reagan’s tax-cutting genius was no longer responsible for the economy’s performance. “The Clinton policies of rising tax burdens, high interest rates and re-regulation is responsible for the sinking stock market and the slumping economy,” he mourned, though no taxes or re-regulation had taken place since he had credited Reagan for the boom earlier that same year.
|
Clinton was one lucky bastard. He managed to take credit for the dot-com boom, and then managed to deflect credit for the dot-com bust. He pushed through a gas tax hike just at the outbreak of pronounced fighting and cheating between the OPEC nations drove down gas prices. Luckily Hillary's attempt to take control of the health care industry crashed and burned avoiding the huge budget / debt hit that would have caused, ushering in budget-minded Congress in 1994, allowing for reduction of the deficit.
He was also just smart enough to leave Greenspan in charge of the Fed.
Kudlow wasn't wrong, but Clinton was more lucky than good.