tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post937255496382462412..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: President Coolidge on Taxes and Government EfficiencyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-29807800061864194372008-11-11T08:03:00.000-05:002008-11-11T08:03:00.000-05:00Coolidge actually managed to decrease federal spen...Coolidge actually managed to decrease federal spending by 10% during his 6 years in office , dropping it from $3.289 billion in 1922 to $2.961 billion in 1928.<BR/><BR/>And even though he cut taxes, he ran a budget <I>surplus</I> every year he was in office.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-32001049437054006212008-11-11T07:42:00.000-05:002008-11-11T07:42:00.000-05:00After looking at the Wikipedia (yes, I admit it) e...After looking at the Wikipedia (yes, I admit it) entry on Coolidge, my sense is that although he had some sense of the proper limits of government, he thought in terms of degree, rather than absolutes.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, he did take positions that would be unthinkable for a politician today, such as refusing to visit a flooded area because it would be political grandstanding, and maintaining that flood mitigation is the primarily the responsibility of the property owner, not the federal government.<BR/><BR/>He probably represented the last spark of freedom to illuminate the Presidency, but the age that he was living in (and possibly his New England Puritan roots) prevented him from grasping the logical conclusions of freedom.TJWelchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01449026805018427526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-45237220244422951902008-11-10T16:08:00.000-05:002008-11-10T16:08:00.000-05:00Thanks for the great reply. I think your reasoning...Thanks for the great reply. I think your reasoning reasserts why arguing for a proper moral foundation for capitalism is absolutely essential for any sustainable cultural change. There are many pro-free market think tanks and there are numerous pro-free market professors in academia. However, both are insufficient towards permanently moving the culture towards laissez faire capitalism.DarkWatershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05148630809538552374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-63414195031180577992008-11-10T10:52:00.000-05:002008-11-10T10:52:00.000-05:00This was an excellent post. But I would look even...This was an excellent post. But I would look even further at what Doug's point implies. Doug writes:<BR/><BR/>"Most politicians today never acknowledge that taxes are forced upon Americans. Most politicians today also insist that their economic policies will only negatively impact the wealthiest of Americans. . . . politicians today brag about how many new government programs they have helped create. . ."<BR/><BR/>The last two points are true because the first one is not. Taxes are not forced on Americans in general, they are forced on certain Americans.<BR/><BR/>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDcxYWNiZTVkNjZkY2I1YmUyMjQzNzc4Y2FjNzI4MjA<BR/><BR/>Almost half of Americans are, quoting Steyn quoting Henninger, "on the dole." And according to Steyn that percentage will soon be increasing to over half.<BR/><BR/>Steyn argues that this is America's tipping point. Past this point, those on the dole can outvote those who produce, and this will lead to the end of America as we know it (or knew it). He writes: "how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable and you've got to give some of it back?"<BR/><BR/>But do people really vote according to cost-benefit estimates of their own individual relationship with the government? In other words do people on the dole vote for more gov't programs, and producers vote for fewer? Actually, as Bryan Caplan has pointed out in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter, no.<BR/><BR/>For example, social security is just as popular among young people who will probably never see a social security check, as it is among current recipients of those checks.<BR/><BR/>The trouble is, this phenomenon of expanding government is largely the result of producers clamoring for their own destruction. This is worse than the sanction of the victim, it's self-victimization.<BR/><BR/>How do we explain this? I think Ayn Rand said it best: we're in the Age of Envy. It's not the poor who are voting to steal from the wealthy, it's the poor and the wealthy together who are voting to destroy wealth and its source.<BR/><BR/>Consider this: For almost 60 years economists have been arguing that the minimum wage doesn't help poor workers, it hurts poor workers by putting them out of work. Why has this insight gained so little ground in over half a century? I think it's because those who support the minimum wage are much less interested in helping poor workers than they are in hurting big corporations. As long as the minimum wage does this, they are satisfied. If it hurts poor workers in the process, that's just the price we have to pay to achieve this goal.<BR/><BR/>For evidence look at how the Republicans have argued (with some success) to create opposition to raising the minimum wage: it hurts small businesses, not large corporations.<BR/><BR/>Coolidge spoke the way he did because he was speaking to a different America. That America is dead now. Welcome to the Age of Envy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com