Academic fraud has never been more acceptable. Works of literature are purged of material contrary to the latest political fad. Photographs are airbrushed to exclude incorrect habits like smoking. Movies with the wrong message are cut.
The same is true in economics, and the most recent con job involves the manipulation of data that reflect poorly on the government.
Republicans seemed sincere when they argued against a minimum-wage increase. In their rhetoric they were right: it increases unemployment, especially among the poor, by making work illegal. Even the head of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers denounced the minimum wage—when he was a private economist.
In an episode of "Married With Children," Jefferson Darcy tells Al Bundy that he can get fast cash by suing a mall for his stress-related injury. "Malls set aside millions for this type of thing," says Darcy. "If we don't get it, it'll go to Social Security and then no one will get it!"
Everyone laughs, but the reality is no laughing matter.
The good news is that supply-siders want to cut taxes. The bad news is...well, let's accentuate the positive for the moment. The supply-siders reject Washington's tendency to think in static terms. To most politicians and bureaucrats, the economy is a pie for the tax collectors and special interests to slice up and gorge themselves on. Then they are shocked when the economy stops growing.
"Forget the minimum wage," says Nate, a dishwasher and cook's helper at our restaurant. "It's taxes that are killing me." He is a college student by day, washes about 1,000 dishes during the dinner rush, and stuffs and rolls grape leaves until midnight.
A year ago January—what a moment!—the two parties were in a tax cut bidding war. Each side was attempting to gain political advantage by trumping the other guy's proposal. Everything was on the table: capital gains tax cuts, income tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, and every manner of tax credit.
George Wallace's famous contention that "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans has received ample corroboration since the 1994 elections. The $50 billion Mexican peso bailout, opposed by some 80% of Americans, has been only the most flagrant example of the real meaning of "bipartisanship."
If it had the will, Congress could kill the redistributionist monster, the Welfare State, that's consumed at least $5 trillion in wealth since the Great Society. How? Cut anywhere and everywhere, abolish whole agencies, and return the $350 billion saved from next year's spending to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut of the same size.
Left-liberals hate the idea, but the prosperity of everyone in a market economy depends in good part on the rich. The capital they have earned and saved generates investments and creates jobs. Their savings keep interest rates low. Their actions are philanthropic in every sense. In their professions, they help everyone prosper. In their charity, they help the poor, and allow the arts and education to thrive.
The income tax has become politically vulnerable. Some politicians have said we should replace it with a national sales tax. Yet, far from reducing the total tax burden, this would merely shift the burden around from individual filers to retailers.
