Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty turned out a blockbuster economic-growth plan this past week, including deep cuts in taxes, spending, and regulations. It's really the first Reaganesque supply-side growth plan from any of the GOP presidential contenders. And he caps it all off with a defense of optimism as he charges ahead with a national economic growth goal of 5 percent.
That's right: 5 percent.
Pawlenty calls this target aspirational. Okay, fine. But deeper down, he's basically saying no to the declinists and pessimists who seem to populate the economic landscape these days. Big government doesn't work. Let's try something different.
Ronald Reagan always believed that America is exceptional. By removing obstacles to growth, the Gipper held that economic policies could unleash a massive outpouring of risk-taking, creativity, and entrepreneurship. He was right, and his policies launched a two-decade-long boom.
Actually, the first couple years of the Reagan recovery came in at over 7 percent. And as Pawlenty noted in his speech at the University of Chicago this week, between 1983 and 1987, the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9 percent annually. I note that Pres. John F. Kennedy also had a 5 percent growth target, a response to Ike's three recessions.
So while those on the left criticize Pawlenty, and while even some conservatives scoff at his growth target, history says we've been there before.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page calls it a growth marker. Famed CEO Jack Welch calls it a vision for America. I think it's an act of great leadership. . . . .
. . . . Is he serious? Of course he is. And he's pretty darned specific. Remember, this is a guy who said no to ethanol subsidies in Iowa, yes to extending the Social Security retirement age in Florida, and no to crony capitalism for Wall Street banks in New York.
In other words, Tim Pawlenty is a tough hombre.
If he stays on message unrelentingly, his growth plan could carry him right to the White House.
Raganesque? splintering the factory system, sending jobs off shore.
De-regulation of Business activity to the point of borderline illegal activity, Look at your phone bill and wake up will ya?
I want no more part of Reganomics, it did not do what was right for this country, and hiring a boatload of accountants and managers, and shipping production all over the Globe has assisted in n the mess we are now in.
He was not as great as we hype him up to be, I lived that era, and we craped all over ourselves, it was the start of the wall street money grab and the loose de-regulation. Regan was a great actor-President, and a well spoken stern man against remnants of the cold war, but he had a real crystal ball we did not. CIA, NCS, FBI already knew the wall was coming down, he did not cause it, he capitalized on it.
He caused a lot of future damage under the guise of a short period for business to run amuck and destroy jobs.
Calling it Americas shinning success story!
I hope you're ducking, Dutchman!!
No one dares criticize the GREAT ONE and lives to tell about it!
(Personally, I think your indictment is spot-on and quite restrained, considering all the other truths you could have invoked ).
Pawlenty has become Minnesota's perpetual-deficit machine By Wayne Cox | Friday, March 6, 2009 A reporter brought up a symmetry at Gov. Tim Pawlenty's news conference Tuesday on the latest budget forecast: Pawlenty began as governor with a projected $4.5 billion deficit —the same level it is today. While the nation has yet to perfect a perpetual-motion machine, Minnesota seems to have found a perpetual-deficit machine in Pawlenty. But isn't Pawlenty just a victim of being a governor during a recession? Partly, but half of the projected deficit in the upcoming biennium is not from the declining economy but from a holdover projected deficit he refused to deal with in earlier years. He has consistently vetoed bills that would have restored revenues to bring budgets into balance into the future."
From http://www.minnpost.com/community_voice … it_machine
Tim Pawlenty sucked in those debates. I know I'm partial to Ron Paul, but he was the first one that said "nope, definitely ain't voting for him".
He thinks that the president can control the economy - nope.
And then he just insulted Obama repeatedly.
Not really presidential material.
I disagree with you as usual. He's getting my support and my $$.
Presidents can't control the economy, and any one of them who tells you otherwise has an ulterior motive for seeking the nomination.
Expect more warfare, more welfare, more deficits, and more tyranny if Pawlenty is elected.
I know little of him, but I know that what he had to say shows that he's going to be more of the same.
I think your making a big mistake. Ron Paul is too "out there" for many independents. Granted, the gap between him and independents has narrowed, its still too much to overcome. I love the guy. He's simply NOT electable. Pawlenty will get you more of what you like in Paul than any other candidate.
The Pawlenty plan ie based on the assumption that the economy will grow at 5% per year and the bigger economy would generate more revenue even at the lower tax rates. To try to put some scale to the assertion, if the economy grew at a sustained 5% for 8 years, it would grow by 48% of the original size. (Assuming the growth compounds)
Wonderful. Yes. Realistic? I looked up the history at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. (bea.gov) if you want to check my numbers, I used the spreadsheet gdpchg..xls Here’s the score.
H.W Bush averaged exactly 2% growth in his 4 years.
Bill Clinton averaged 3.65% growth in his 8 years.
Shrubbie averaged 1.62% growth in his 8 years.
Clinton was the last president to have a balanced budget, done with higher taxes. Of the three recent presidents, W, with tax cuts for the rich came the closest to the Pawlenty plan. None of the GOP candidates mentioned that President Obama has not raised taxes.
A note on method – I don’t know SOP for economists, but I ‘bumped’ the count by one year on the assumption that changes in policy don’t show in the first year. HW was president from ’89 to ’92. But I credited him with the economy from ’90 to ’93. This gave HW credit (or blame) for Clinton’s first calendar year, but I used the same method throughout the calculations.
"Plans for economic growth or cutting government spending always rely on the future. That's the problem! They need to deal with it NOW -- none of this "cutting 20% over 15 years" or "expected growth over 5 years"! Deal with it now".
Ron Paul is the man.
So--we're going back to Voodoo economics....again? How many times before you get that it doesn't work?
And 5% growth has NEVER been sustained....EVER.
He's gonna have to come up with a dooozy for that one.....let him try.
He's not tough. Tough would be actually asking those who make a lot pay a lot....he is suggesting just the opposite.
I'm still waiting for that trickle I was promised I would see in the 80's I am beginning to believe that someone built a pretty big dam way above my head.
If next year the American people pull the plug on the Obama presidency, mark down the past week as the beginning of the end . . . and what looks like the real beginning of Tim Pawlenty's candidacy.
Incumbency isn't merely a function of political inevitability but of the fact that a presidency commands potent tools of self-restoration. Barack Obama's decision to kill Osama bin Laden was one such weapon. But we now see that this welcome May Surprise was insufficient to thwart the one force bigger than the American presidency—the U.S. economy. As of this week, it's looking like a long mudslide through the economy to November 2012.
Barack Obama's worst week was about more than bad data. The two great legislative monuments to the first Obama term, the remaking of the health-care industry and the Dodd-Frank financial reform, look like they've got serious structural cracks. A McKinsey report estimates that a third of employers will abandon their health-insurance plans come 2014. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the failure (or inability) of Dodd-Frank's regulatory arm to write new rules for the $583 trillion derivatives market has the financial sector in a panic over its legal exposure.
The worst was yet to come: Mr. Goolsbee announced he was departing the White House for the irresistible pull of academic tenure. What this signifies is that Mr. Goolsbee, a reputable economist, knows that in terms of economic policy, the Obama armory is empty.
No wonder Tim Pawlenty is smiling. Amid a news cycle whose message is "nothing's working," Mr. Pawlenty delivered a major speech on economic policy whose title could have been: All the Things Barack Obama Has Not Tried to Do to Lift the Economy and Never Will.
The 2012 election is going to be fought over how we get economic growth.
Whether Gov. Pawlenty's prescriptions—dramatically lower individual and corporate taxes, zero taxes on capital gains and dividends, sunset provisions for federal regulations and a growth-rate target of 5%—are provable as solutions is politically beside the point at this moment. As substantive brand differentiation, the Pawlenty speech was a success.
The battle will be fought over economic growth and how we get it—Obama's way or something close to the opposite of Obama's way. On one hand is Barack Obama's government-led "investment" mix, embedded with spending raised to 24% of GDP. On the other is the alternative GOP vision, which is starting to gel.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 35004.html
Who does Obama fear? According to The Hill the only three names on the board at Obama campaign headquarters are Pawlenty, Romney and Huntsman.
They are the most moderate candidates and any of them would take independent votes that were wasted on Obama in 2008. The president doesn't resemble the candidate they thought they were electing. Not by a long shot.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat … d-huntsman
I saw those debates too and while his language was a bit more colorful, what he was basically saying was: "Don't let them screw you out of your money. Let me do it."
Trickle-down economics DOESN'T work. Look at the last bailout. $800 BILLION... that's right BILLION, and it was our money. Pawlenty is doing exactly the same thing as everyone else. He's just put a different color paint on it. They think spending is how we get out of this recession. It won't work, and while Congress and the President are arguing tooth and nail about a few $billion one way or the other, the deficit (which is the amount we are spending over what we take in) is rising by $trillions. That's TRILLION... as in One thousand billions. The flood has come, and we're arguing about whether we should use a sponge or a towel? Please don't insult my intelligence.
Ron Paul is the only one making sense... and he's crazy as a box of slinkies. When the one that makes the most sense is the crazy one, what exactly are we supposed to expect out of the others?
Trust me... When Obama can get elected on a platform of "change" and yet somehow be like all the others, why anyone with any sense still votes Democrat or Republican is just beyond my comprehension.
Stephen Colbert just did a great sketch on T-Paw's economic plan.
Basically (according to The Colbert Report) Pawlenty is proposing "The Google test." If you can do a Google search and find a business that offers the service then that service should not be provided by the government.
Ok, makes sense.
Colbert made a couple of fun comparisons of the USPS vs. Fed Ex and Googled a paving company to replace the Department of Transportation.
Then he said, I just Googled Tim Pawlenty.
Therefore, Tim Pawlenty has no business running anything in government.
The Google Test -- brilliant!
I love Stephen Colbert, but he's a comedian.
The more important something is, the more it should be left to the people making independent decisions based on their own subjective valuation.
This will be the only quote from Keynes that I will ever encourage:
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful that is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
And here's the crux of the matter, delivered by F. A. Hayek:
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
Free the markets: Only the individual people know their own subjective valuations, let them decide on their own. Watch in splendor as people are forced by greed to help one another.
by Alexander A. Villarasa 6 years ago
Now that all three presidential and one vice-presidential debates are history, the quintessential question begs to be answered. Are we better off economically compared to 4 years ago when Pres. Obama assumed the reins of the presidency? If some of us answers yes, then Obama...
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
Barack Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate.According to Louis Woodhill, if the economy continues to perform below 2.67% GDP growth rate this year, President Barack Obama will leave office with the fourth worst economic record in US history.Assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016,...
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Who has done better in economic growth, Bush II or Obama? Think carefully before answering.Using 4th Q 2009 through 1st Q 2012 GDP figures, after things stabilized somewhat from the debacle of the 2008 recessions, as a baseline for Obama, and comparing to the 6 similarly long periods from...
by Jimbo'daNimbo 6 years ago
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/egan-j … 2012-09-14I am sorry folks.All this just ain't working.And four more years of the same thing will just mean more downgrades.
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
David Wessel in today's Wall Street Journal: Washington is the Biggest Drag on the U.S. EconomyHousing is on its way back. Consumers are spending more readily. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. private industries are hiring. The stock market is up. The U.S. economy is healing, albeit slowly.The...
by crankalicious 5 years ago
I was thinking about this from a historian's perspective (I have an M.A. in History). My first caveat about this question is that, as a historian, I think it's misguided to try to evaluate president's while they're still in their presidency. It takes perspective and time to provide a proper...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|