A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in order unilateral changes to immigration laws in the latest such ruling against executive overreach by the President. The President’s own words were used by the panel to rule that he intended to unilaterally change the law.
Some 26 states sued to stop the amnesty as violative of the Immigration and Nationality Act. President Obama ordered Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals, or DAPA, to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants a proactive three-year stay of deportation and to give them work permits. To qualify, illegal immigrants had to be parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident children.
Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod,The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals quoted from Obama’s remarks in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. In response to a heckler who was criticizing him for boosting the number of deportations, Obama said “But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.”
Smith added that the Justice Department seemed to stumble over the remarks: “At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes.”
Deferred action, however, is much more than nonenforcement: It would
affirmatively confer “lawful presence” and associated benefits on a class of
unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that change in designation
would trigger (as we have already explained) eligibility for federal benefits—for example, under title II and XVIII of the Social Security Act99—and state
benefits—for example, driver’s licenses and unemployment insurance100—that
would not otherwise be available to illegal aliens.
Writing in dissent on Monday, Judge Carolyn Dineen King rejected the arguments that the change was effectively changing federal law and dismissed Mr. Obama’s words as just the type of loose talk that comes from politicians and not a real legal argument.
I testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. I ran another column listing such incidents of executive over-reach. My prior testimony has discussed unilateral actions in the immigration field that do raise separation issues.
Major changes in these areas should not be the result of unilateral action in my view. The Madisonian system is designed to allow different constituencies to come to bear in the bicameral system to take factional disputes and convert them into majoritarian compromises. The result has greater legitimacy as the result of the legislative process and often constitutes a better process after being put through the difficult drafting and amendment process. During times of division, less may get done. Both sides must either compromise or seek to change the balance of power in the next election. If the country and Congress is too divided to reach a compromise, unilateral action will only deepen the questions of legitimacy and over-reach.
Here is the opinion: Texas v. United States
Should be “fairly RECENT examples” in my first sentence.
Put your machinations in the private sector.
Fund your machinations with your own private dollars.
P.S. Watch out for Mr. Market. He can be brutal. Ask Warren Buffet.
Of course without Roosevelt’s collectivism and intervention, the recession would have ended, probably around 1936. Social Security, Medicare, Alger Hiss, et al. were products of Roosevelt and were all pure proven communism.
Mr. Market will always effect “regression to the mean.” Mr. Market will prevail over humans every time.
TARP was distinctly unconstitutional “Central Planning” in American Free Enterprise.
TARP, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, SOCAIL SECURITY, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, SOCIAL SERVICES, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, MEDICARE, OBAMACARE, UTILITY SUBSIDIES, FORCED BUSING, “FAIR HOUSING,” ANTI-DISCRIMINATION,” UNIONIZED GOVERNMENTAL WORKERS, ETC., ARE ALL ANTITHETICAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENTRAL PLANNING, SOCIAL ENGINEERING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH THAT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY, FREEDOM, FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE FOUNDERS REQUIREMENT OF SELF-RELIANCE.
Greed is Good. Failure is Good. Well run companies thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to buy up assets of poorly run/failed companies at pennies on the dollar. Competition and the dynamics of free enterprise generate the best goods at the lowest prices for consumers as they create wealth for the producers. Charity is private industry that is vibrant and lucrative. Americans are free to organize charities and to vigorously promote charity in the private sector. Charity and compassion are not compulsory or mandated by the Constitution and they rely on the generosity of individuals, not taxpayer funding.
Mr. Market will prevail over humans every time.
Freedom and free enterprise without interference by government are the “blessings of liberty” which were everything left after the Founders limited government to
Justice,
Tranquility,
Common Defence,
Promote General Welfare.
American governance exists to facilitate freedom and free enterprise, not to control or dictate anything.
You subscribe to
Central Planning
Control of the Means of Production
Social Engineering
Redistribution of Wealth
Can I tell you? That is communism – making you a communist.
Those principles were missing after the implementation of the American principles of freedom and self-reliance, so Karl Marx introduced the Communist Manifesto 60 years after the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights were set in history.
If the American Founders had intended to implement collectivism, socialism and communism,
there would have been no need for Karl Marx.
The American Founders meant freedom and free enterprise.
The American Founders rejected all of the principles of Marxism, collectivism, socialism and communism.
The American Founders rejected TARP.
forgotwhoiam, “Can I tell you? That is communism – making you a communist.” Keep on fighting the good fight. The people who believe in “Democratic Socialism” are confused. Socialism and Communism are the alters on which the individual is sacrificed.
A documentary on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, focusing on the iconic image of a single protester who stood in front of a line of advancing tanks.
Herr Nash und Herr Schulte, danke sehr.
I am elated to have this opportunity to answer and educate.
The Department of Labor is antithetical in its institutionalization of bias. Government was established by the Founders to facilitate freedom and free enterprise, not to dictate. Government has no constitutional mandate to favor, or otherwise assist, business or labor. Business is free to hire, workers are free to strike, business is free to hire replacements and strikers are free to find new jobs. Neither side is assisted in its endeavor. The dynamics of business/worker relations will generate industry funded associations, co-ops, etc. Government facilitates by assuring the environment of freedom. Business/worker relations are not a function of government or the burden of the taxpayer.
In 1789, the Founders told us, and elected officials assured for the better part of 200 years, that government was limited to
Justice,
Tranquility,
Common Defence,
Promote General Welfare (roads, utilities, etc.)
and that the “blessings of liberty” were freedom and free enterprise without interference by government, referred to as “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” was introduced 60 years later, precisely because the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights did not impose dictatorship, but freedom of the individual and his free enterprise or “pursuit of happiness.”
Nowhere do the Founders state that government will preside over the execution of business, which includes the management of its labor force as it sees fit without governmental interference.
Nowhere do the Founders state that government will assure employment or compensation of workers.
Redress of grievances includes legitimate grievances of the abuse of the power of government against a citizen or denial of the freedoms and rights of citizens. Redress of grievances does not include labor relations or laws against hiring replacement workers.
Any Bureau of Labor Statistics can only exist under a communist governmental structure which controls the means of production” “for the benefit” of workers under a collectivist policy of governmental “Central Planning.” Under a system of governance of freedom, no “labor statistics” can be utilized for any reason, thus no “labor statistics” need generation. Under the American founding documents, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is entirely moot. Since private industry and workers are free, industries and associations that utilize industry statistics must generate them with private funds, not taxes.
An association of workers negotiating with an employer may develop statistics with which to conduct those negotiations, but the government has no mandate to dictate, manipulate or control operations or negotiations between a business and its employees. The dynamics of the business/labor situation will efficiently determine employment and compensation and that is a private matter.
Business and labor have the freedom and right to function internationally and international businesses and workers (i.e. “guest workers”) have the freedom and right to function domestically. Prices, wages and demand for temporary “guest workers” will be set by market forces including competition (temporary guest workers and citizens are different entities with different considerations).
Unions of governmental workers are antithetical and have no constitutional mandate. The military is a segment of government and it employees governmental employees. The military does not entertain labor unions. Elected and appointed officials have a duty to hire, fire, direct and pay employees. Unionization of governmental workers is unconstitutional usurpation of the power of the people to elect officials in charge of governmental operations. It is unconstitutional for a governmental unions to strike the government and attempt to usurp the power of the People through their elected officials. It is unconstitutional for elected officials to give over their duties and their power to governmental worker unions. Governmental workers are free to quit their jobs and elected officials are free to hire replacements.
The “minimum wage” is governmental bias, favoritism, antithetical and unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution mandate that government establish any prices or wages. The only entity that can effectively set prices and wages is the market.
Socialism is communism-in-waiting.
Socialism is communism in sheep’s clothing.
Socialism is the “means justified by the ends.”
Socialism is unconstitutional.
The American Thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.
Nash
‘Huge” majority in the Senate lasted until Ted died, 7 months after Obama was inaugurated. IIRC, there were pressing matters at the time – it was called an economic meltdown. Perhaps you remember that? Also, Obama had not yet learned that the Republicans were a bunch of madmen who cared nothing for governing but only stopping anything that his administration favored. That would have included immigration reform and getting people back to work.
But I’m glad you admit to some curiosity. Perhaps you could indulge it once again by reviewing the history during the period of 1/20/09 thru 1/20/11 to get a feel for what was keeping everyone so occupied.
M.- The Congress that Obama had in Jan. 2009 had the following composition:
House of Representatives -256 Democrats, 176 Republicans
Senate- 60 Democrats, ,40 Republicans ( Sanders and Lieberman were technically “Independents”, but caucused with and voted with their Democratic colleagues)
Since you object to the phrase ” huge majority”, let’s call it a “substantial majority”.
When Sen. Kennedy died, Obama faced the nightmare of ” only” having a 59-40 Senate majority, then a 59-41 majority the following year when the MA. Special election to replace Kennedy was won by a Republican.
Obama set the tone right off the bat when he schooled the Republican minority that “elections have consequences, and we won”. He then followed up on that by discarding and/or marginalizing Republican input.
He barely got Obamacare passed with stunts like passing it via ” reconciliation”, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, etc. in the dead of night. Real “transparency”, as Gruber later admitted, to get a bare majority on Obamacare even with the ” substantial” Democratic majority.
Feel free to ignore all of the above and continue whining about “Republican obstructionism”, etc.
I’m very familiar with the events from mid-Sept. 2008 thru 2009. Once TARP was passed in late 2008, the cascade of financial failures of major firms was contained.
I think opponents of TARP were willing to oppose major bailouts and plunge the U.S. into a 1930s style depression, based on their principles. As example, AIG had 175 million policies in force; if you let them fail, and that failure affects a lot of people.
The very worst of the ” white knuncle time”, as far as avoiding a total collapse of the U.S. financial system, was over NY late 2008.
If you want to “indulge your curiosity”, review the history from Sept.2008 to Jan.2009.
To Forgotwhoiam- We had a few fairly examples of what happens when regulators are MIA, and” Mr. Market” leads us down the tubes.
The 2008 meltdown is the best (worst) example. Reckless subprime loans, insane leverage, and unregulated derivatives all combined to give us a recession on steroids. I won’t try to review all of the c. 30 year march toward financial market deregulation, or the major players.
But there are some key events. Deregulation of the S&L industry magnified a crisis caused by reckless lending, outright fraud (there were about 1,000 convictions in the wake of this fiasco, and many of those convicted served long sentences).
Given the dire situation by the late 1980s, there were stark choices….let most of those S&L’s collapse, and see millions of depositors get wiped out, let them o under, and honor the guarantees of FSLIC deposit insurance, which would provide some protection to depositors ( up to $10,000 then, if I remember correctly), or seize and liquidate the S&Ls that were too far gone, then shore up those that had the best chance of survival. And dispose of the assets of the siezed, failed banks.
Another example, in 1998, was the collapse of unregulated hedge fund Long Term Capital Management. The $10 Billion of investors’ money was not the real problem.
Rather, it was the ONE TRILLION dollar exposure to their investment. That is, they were “buying investments”, had initiated trades, by leveraging $1 of their investors’ money into $100 gambles. 100 to 1 leverage is a fool’s bet.
There was an ad hoc scramble to sort out the mess and contain the damage. There was a real risk of this sinking major financial firms impacted by this $Trillion exposure. There were no system reforms, just a patchwork, ad hoc solution to this problem.
Glass Steagal, in force since the 1930s, was repealed the same year. It was like saying let’ do this again, and see what happens.
What ultimately happened was the 2008 mega- crisis. While I favor the least amount of EFFECTIVE regulation, mindless deregulation has caused massive problems, and threatens the entire financial system.
Nash
I draw your attention to the following (from Greenlaw)
“The administration’s deferred action program was announced a year ago in a memorandum by Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security. The five-page memo, which Judge King attached to her dissenting opinion, described deferred action as “a form of prosecutorial discretion.” This use of administrative discretion in immigration enforcement dates to the 1960s, Mr. Johnson noted. The difference here was that a specific class of people — otherwise law-abiding parents of American-born or legal-resident children — would be eligible for a three-year deferral of deportation if they applied for it, passed a background check, and paid a fee of $465. In other words, nothing is automatic. There is no waving of a magic wand for the entire class; each applicant has to pass individually through the gateway that the program establishes.
The memo concluded: “This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only an Act of Congress can confer these rights. It remains within the authority of the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and deferred action within the framework of existing law. This memorandum is an exercise of that authority.”
Please read it carefully – particularly the concluding paragraph.
To M.- There is a link in this column to the the decision in TEXAS V. UNITED STATES.
The 5th and 6th paragraphs of this column summarize a key part of the court’s decision ( dealing with the court’s rejection of the “prosecutorial discretion” argument by Jeh Johnson).
It’s curious that Obama did not view this aspect of immigration reform as a priority when had huge majorities in both houses of Congress.
At that point, I think he could have actually changed the law without bypassing Congress via executive order.
Tom Nash,
“There are actually a set of government established metrics used to measure GDP, expansions and recessions.”
Excuse me. There is no constitutional mandate for Central Planning or Control of the Means of Production. That is derived from the Communist Manifesto. The only related constitutional governmental function is to establish a stable “utility of the currency,” and as we all know the U.S. currency was floated, its gold-backed stability removed, and handed over to the international bankers (i.e. bloated Fed) for their enjoyment as a play toy, as a component of the Fed/Treasury/Military/Industrial Complex.
In case you haven’t heard, the American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.
The “metrics” you mention are necessarily employed by private analysts of equity and debt brokerages. It helps them promote the idea that they have some semblance of expertise and acumen above that of customers and monkeys that throw darts at stock pages stuck to the wall, in their futile attempts to exceed the performance of Mr. Market.
This is a fundamental difference between the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and freedom of the individual.
I wonder what the American Founders implemented and what the Constitution mandates.
To fogotwhoiam…
Do you think that the BLS, for example, is unconstitutional?
Or that their publishing of economic data is unconstitutional?
Tom Nash – it is not unconstitutional, but rather extraconstitutional.
Paul C. Schulte…..as far as I know, Congress can establish (or eliminate) executive branch departments.
I’m not aware of any Constitutional challenges to that authority that have reached SCOTUS, but there may have been.
It’s not something I’ve ever researched.
Nash,
Thanks for your insightful contribution to the conversation.
Edward
….I read her OpEd she wrote for the N.Y. Times.
It sounds like Greenhouse Gas to me.
Linda Greenhouse has quite a different take on this decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/judicial-energy-and-the-supreme-court.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0
Greenhouse says:
“The majority opinion is as cynical an exercise of judicial authority as I can remember — and no, I haven’t forgotten Bush v. Gore. The dissenting judge, Carolyn Dineen King, nailed it when she said the case “essentially boils down to a policy dispute” and that “the policy decisions at issue in this case are best resolved not by judicial fiat, but via the political process.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could hardly have said it better himself. In fact, he did say essentially the same thing, in his dissenting opinion last June in the same-sex marriage case.”
Professor Turley once again abandons any pretense of a neutral stance and takes on the robes of a political partisan. His headline is a dead giveaway.
Edward..
…You’re welcome.
As far as your objections to the title of this column, JT may be open to a less “partisan” rephrasing of that title.
Accusing him of partisanship while posting an OpEd from a partisan hack like Greenhouse is ironic.
She is evidently in agreement with Reagan supporter Eastland’s position that there should be “energetic” unilateral executive action to advance changes in legislation over Congressional objection.
She glosses over the fundamental Constitutional issue of Executive over-reach via Executive Orders
This issue can not be dismissed as “a political policy dispute”, as Greenhouse tries to portray it.
When Obama repeatedly stated that he was “not an emperor”, and could not unilaterally change immigration law, and then does exactly that and accidently admits it, the issue goes well behind a “political policy dispute”.
Isaac……You said that”Perhaps the word recession is too easily interpreted from the definition of ecomic analysts”.
There are actually a set of government established metrics used to measure GDP, expansions and recessions.
Those standards are far from perfect, but they are the best available definations and benchmarks we have.
When the defination of and standards for categorizing recessions are largely subjective, then any realistic debate about economic history is impossible.
It’s a “Tower of Babel” type of discourse when the standard, generally-accepted definition of recessions is replaced by subjective definitions.
Tom Nash
Perhaps the word recession is too easily interpreted from the definition placed by economic analysts and the real conditions resulting. Economic analysts describe the ‘Great Recession’ 2007 to 2009 to have endured for a year and a half when it is obvious that the overall effects of the causes are still being felt, severely in some segments of the US economy as well as the world’s economies. While the analysis of the Reaganomic debacle presents a six to eight month recession, the effects on the general economy were felt for more than seven years. The previous recession of the early 80s was linked to the Reaganomic mess in a way that Reagan’s policies provided a temporary but false recovery but did little to nothing to address the real reasons for the problems. The effects of Reaganomics ceased being felt when the real estate market began rebounding in 95. This was due to eight months to a year of job security which had not been experienced for some time. This job security was the result of the new industries revolving around the tech revolution. The human barometer for recession is the fear to purchase large items such as cars and primarily homes. There was a rise in real estate values up to the mid eighties/87-88 and then a decline until 95. Of course there were areas in the US which were not affected as such but in general people were not buying homes as they did not trust the economy.
The general decline in American manufacturing exports as illustrated with the auto industry preceded Reagan and Carter. Reagan permitted a bandaid move by allowing SUVs to be less regulated as are trucks and therefore be more affordable. This increased temporarily the industry but did not address the overall reasons for the decline of the US automobile industry which are several. Initially the rise in quality of foreign cars, their better gas mileage, and the cooperation between government, labor, and administration in the source countries allowed for their increase in sales in the US as well as around the world. Bling and choice was all the US auto manufacturers offered for so long they sewered the industry. Eventually common sense, reliability, and lower costs wins out. This has more to do with the American laissez faire approach to its economy than anything else. The Republican approach to lower taxes, let the corporations do what they will, and separate the government or social oversight from free enterprise has not been working for several decades. What has been working, in other countries, is a partnership between labor, government, and corporate administration. The US does do this but reluctantly, in denial, and the results are dysfunctional. America’s greatest weakness is its denial of the fact that it is a society first, a socialist entity, and that the individual will only prosper if supported by a strong and consistent society. Or, we could all just arm ourselves to the teeth and wait for the jackbooted government agents to come.
Ford was not “bailed out” by the government. Alan Mullaly steered that company through very tough times, and back to prosperity.
But I still don’t like their cars.😊
Paul C.-Do you remember the year when Reagan made those comments- I don’t think it was 1993.
I do remember him previously complaining that he couldn’t get the non-defense spending cuts he wanted, but that was no secret.
But no single interview stands out, as far as I can remember.
Paul, When the giant US economy sneezes, Canada gets a cold. That is part of the pathology @ work w/ our hoser friend. Decades of resentment warps your world view.
Paul
There are global recessions and local recessions. With the world’s economies more and more intertwined, those economies that are similar and more connected tend to receive similar results from economic upswings and downturns. However, countries like China, India, and Brazil are influenced by different forces as they are in their own unique conditions. The last recession which was much more pronounced in the US than elsewhere affected the trading partners of the US but not to the same extent. Canadian companies did not require bailouts as did the likes of Chrysler, GM, Ford, AIG, etc. This was due to the more balanced nature of the Canadian economy where health insurance does not factor directly into labor disputes as it did in the US, in both the public and private sector. This is true also of the major European countries. This was also true during the Great Depression, although Canada along with much of the rest of the world suffered years of economic depression, no Canadian banks failed, as did many US banks. The Wild West holds an allure but is built on shaky principles.
The US is a polarized nation where the upswings and downturns are more drastic due to the us or them mentality of the voter. There is little room in the middle for compromise and cooperation. Everything the Democrats have done is threatened to be dismantled by the Republicans regardless of the damage that will do to the American people. American politics is less about the best interests of the people and more about which party is right. The Republican party has a recent and extensive history of holding a gun to the head of the American people and threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way. For the past six/seven years nothing has come from the Republican party in the way of productive and proactive solutions, only anger, threats, finger pointing, and vitriol. Of course this does tend to obscure their previous most shameful and destructive periods of control.
Isaac- The 2007-2009 recession was without question the most severe recession since the Depression.
U.S. auto sales plummeted from c.16-17 million per year to c. 11 million. The macro-economic factors (i.e., the U.S. and global economies in a tailspin) had more to do with auto manufacturers bankruptcies than than company-specific mismanagement.
And the bankruptcies in other manufacturing industries. The financial industry sector collapse, triggering a financial meltdown, was caused primarily by mindless deregulation that had been underway for decades, permitting casino-like speculation with CDOs, CDSs, extreme hedge fund leverage, subprime loans, etc.
Those WERE industry-specific blunders, distinct from other manufacturing bankruptcies caused primarily by a massive economic recession.
As I mentioned, Ford did not go bankrupt or take a government bailout. CEO Alan Mullaly demonstrated exceptional foresight and managerial skills to turn that company around.
“Run of the mill” CEOs could not anticipate or withstand a sharp 35% drop in auto sales.
Tom Nash
You still have not grasped that the seemingly robust economic times created by Reaganomics in his first term and that carried into his second term were the result of unsustainable jimmying of the economic structure of revenue and expenditures. The recession he caused, and this is documented well enough, began in the last part of his second term and continued on through Bush’s single term-primarily why he wasn’t reelected-said he wouldn’t raise taxes but he did/had to, and into the first years of the Clinton term(s). In 95 when job security became a fixture, real estate started selling and the economy took off. This was due to real economics, manufacturing, consumption, jobs, etc., not phony economics or Reaganomics.
It is an accepted fact that reducing taxes and raising spending leads to deficits and economic downturns. The lollapalooza of this condition was of course, the midget cowboy we just endured, but will hopefully not forget.
Clinton caught the tech wave and encouraged it. He raised taxes and enjoyed robust revenue. Both are examples of ‘real revenue’. Reagan, lowered taxes, increased spending, and created a bubble with no footing. That was and remains the primary GOP economic argument and it doesn’t work, anywhere.
Regarding 7/8 year recessions and 15 year recessions, you are the only one mentioning 15 year recessions. You sound like a GOP member going for the nomination, exaggerating, lying, misstating, etc. Philosophers make twice as much as welders and the US is more wanting in Philosophy than in welding. But, hey, exaggerate if you need to.
The seven years +/- that spanned the end of Reagan’s second term into the first term of Clinton were economic doldrums which included severe downturns in the economy throughout the country. This was caused by the ending of spending for the War in Vietnam, Cold War, etc and the beginning of the exodus of manufacturing jobs from the US due to the lack of cooperation between government, labor, and administration. Those jobs went to countries that had and continue to have excellent partnering between government, labor, and administration. That is history and hard to refute. Statistics and Detroit explain it all.
The greatest quality of Reagan was his ability to make Americans feel good and shell out stuff that had to be paid for later. This was eagerly gobbled up by an America that had just endured the shame of Vietnam, Civil Rights realities, and was watching its major industrial base erode as gas prices rose and the world began to less clearly defined as an us or them scenario. Reagan recreated the us or them scenario.
Isaac-What you fail to grasp is that you can’t keep making up your own subjective definition(s) of recessions; at least if you want any credibilty.
You need to google “U.S. recessions” instead of trying to filibuster your way out of your glaring factual errors.
Isaac….read your own previous posts. You stated that “the Reagan ‘downside’ lasted until 1994-1995”.
Then you later said that “the 1987/1988 to 1994/1995 recession was the worst since the Great Depression”.
There was a fairly mild recession in 1990-1991. And you must have not been around in the 1973-1974 recession, or the late 1970s recession if you really believe that.
“I asked Laffer about the economy’s surge, while income tax rates rose, during the Clinton presidency — which critics cite as repudiation of supply-side theories. Laffer noted that tax rates on work and investment fell in the ’90s. “Under Clinton we had the biggest reduction in government spending in 30 years, one of the steepest reductions in the capital gains tax, a big cut in the tax on traded goods thanks to NAFTA, and welfare reforms which dramatically increased incentives to work. Of course the economy soared.””
Karen S.- Clinton had a number of favorable tailwinds when he took office in 1993.
The recession of 1990-1991 was actually fairly mild. By the 4 Quarter of 1992 GDP growth was at 5%….the strongest growth in several years.
The rebound came too late to help Bush 41 in the ’92 election.
Defense spending was already starting to decline, due to the end of the Cold War and the success of Gulf War One. It was scheduled to decline even more for several years, under Bush or Clinton.
The S&L mess had been cleaned up (not very efficiently). Since Bush 41 was on board during the reckless S&L deregulation, it was fitting that he pay the freight.
Reckless speculation in the stock market, which drove (over) valuation to unprecented heights (especially in the late 1990s), brought in capital gains receipts to the Treasury…until it started to crash in early 2000, about 10 months before Clinton left office.
I think these were the biggest “tailwinds” for the Clinton presidency.
The “Laffer Curve”, explained:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-laffer-curve-at-40-still-looks-good/2014/12/26/4cded164-853d-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html
Basically, when the tax rate is 100%, revenue is zero, because what’s the point of working? If the tax rate is zero, revenue is zero. The goal is to find the ideal optimization of revenue with a strong economy. That lies somewhere between the two points. People will self ration their revenue to avoid confiscatory taxes. Financial advisors, in fact, make their living in part on this practice. “Don’t put your money here, it will all be gone. Do this instead.” Most of us have either experienced first hand or seen this is others, where they get a raise and actually take home less money because they went up a tax bracket. Maximizing take home pay becomes a strategy. So the goal should not be to increase taxes to a certain number. It should be to optimize tax revenue and the economy, combined. At some perfect balance point, you actually collect more revenue from the rich by lowering the rate, because they change their financial behavior. Ronald Reagan himself stated that he stopped making movies each year when he hit the confiscatory tax rate. If he made another one after that, he would have actually brought home less money after taxes. This is actually common sense. The rich do not suddenly stop trying to save money, like the rest of us do.
When Reagan slashed the tax rate from 70% to 28%, revenue actually increased from $517 billion to $909 billion.
That is hardly a tale of failure.