What J.F.K. Knew About Economics And What Most Democrats Today Don't

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy -- a Democrat -- was entering his second year in office and was enjoying robust economic growth.  Faster than that of either of his two predecessors.  Even so, he declared that "the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth."  What he was referring to was the fact that, despite good GDP numbers, nearly 1-in-5 Americans (+38 million) were in poverty and the unemployment rate was still high at 6%; although down from 7% before he took office.

Thus, to fix the poverty and unemployment problems, Kennedy proposed across the board cuts in income taxes and a reduction of the corporate tax rate; including reducing taxes on the rich from a rate of 91% to just 65%.  In doing so, he offered no offsetting spending cuts to pay for the reductions.  His argument for not cutting spending was simply his belief that"a rising tide lifts all boats".  Or, in other words,  lowering taxes would create jobs for those who were unemployed and in poverty and, as such, revenues would increase so much so that his proposed tax cuts would naturally be offset.  That is as long as spending was controlled. Sadly, Kennedy was assassinated before he could see his tax reductions passed into law.

Then, in 1964 and just three months after Kennedy's death, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Kennedy tax cuts in what is now known as the Revenue Act of 1964.  All of Kennedy's assumptions were proven correct.  As such, Johnson had the lowest average unemployment rate of any President since World War II.  Revenues grew 68% from when Kennedy took office.  The most astonishing fact was that, in just four years, the number of Americans in poverty fell from more than 38 million in 1964 to just over 25 million by the end of 1968.  A 34% reduction.

Today, Democrats like President Obama want to punish the rich and corporations with higher taxes.  In wanting to do so, they always point to President Clinton who, despite raising taxes, enjoyed strong economic growth.  However, what those same Democrats fail to recognize is that during Clinton's time, it was mostly due to the dot-com business and wealth boom of the 1990's.

Kennedy's economic prowess -- with economic growth faster for both him and Johnson than Clinton -- is anathema to most Democrats because, if they were to praise Kennedy for cutting taxes on the rich and corporations, this would be to deny themselves of their victimization strategy in order to get votes.  After all, corporations and the rich are supposedly at the heart of everything that is evil and wrong in this country and the rest of the world.  Kennedy was rich and he never tried to hide it; unlike Hillary Clinton who is also rich.  She would prefer that you think that she and Bill were dead broke when they left the White House; and, would like you to think they still are.   Of course, it's really hard to bash the rich when you're one of them.

References:

Kennedy Presidential Library: JFK on the Economy and Taxes:  http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/JFK-on-the-Economy-and-Taxes.aspx

Economic Growth By President: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/chart-economic-growth-president

The Revenue Act of 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964

U.S. Unemployment Statistics by President:  http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-unemployment-rates-president

Historical Lesson of Lowered Tax Rates: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

Census Bureau: Poverty from 1959 to 1968: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-068a.pdf

Guns and the Mental Health System that Jack Built

Following the recent Santa Barbara shooting rampage, many seem outraged that someone so mentally unstable could be able to buy a gun. In fact, the police visited his apartment over issues that could possibly be related to mental illness but did nothing about it.  That's because, in this country, someone must commit an actual crime in order to be held for mental observation. It wasn't always this way.

Prior to 1963, anyone suspected of having serious mental health issues could be held for observation against their will.  If found to be dangerous to either themselves or others, they would be institutionalized at any one of the numerous state-run mental facilities across the country.  Now with institutionalization, there were abuses.  Some people were improperly diagnosed and falsely held.  Others, while being treated, suffered physical abuse from hospital staff.  Then all those abuses were sensationalized in news stories, films, and documentaries.  So, in 1955, the Democrat-led Congress commissioned a study of  mental health treatment.  In 1961, the results of that study and recommendation's were submitted to both Congress and the then-President Jack Kennedy.  Just like ObamaCare, the recommendation was that the current system of treating mental illness should be scrapped and replaced with a Federally-mandated system. So, Kennedy, as part of his New Frontier initiative, urged his fellow Democrats, who controlled both Houses of Congress, to pass into law the Community Mental Health Act (CMHA).  The CMHA was ultimately passed and signed into law by  Kennedy in 1963.

What this law did was to completely change how the severely mentally ill were treated. First of all, it was supposed to create numerous Community Mental Health Centers so that patients could live and work in their communities while getting care at one of these centers.  Secondly, no longer could anyone be mandatorily institutionalized unless it was proven that they had actually done harm to themselves or someone else.

As a result of this law, 90% of all the existing state-run mental facilities were shuttered.  As for the Community Centers, only about 50% were built and, of those, many were severely understaffed; all for lack of Federal funding.  But, the biggest problem with the concept of community centers is the fact that many,  mental patients don't think their ill.  As a consequence, they won't voluntarily seek help or take medication.  That is one reason why we have so many homeless people living on our city streets.

So, when you hear Democrats calling for better mental health screening for people seeking to buy guns, they have only themselves to blame for the lack of that screening.  The Santa Barbara shooter definitely had mental issues because, as reported, he was being treated by multiple therapists for many years. So, somehow saying that our nation's police should have better recognized the problem and done something about it is simply a "cop" out.  However, if it was pre-1963, he probably would have been institutionalized; or, at least, categorized as someone who was dangerous to himself and others, and therefore not able to buy a gun.

This situation proves, just like ObamaCare, that the Federal government has no place being involved in healthcare.
 
References:

After Santa Barbara Killings, Questions About Police Dealing With Mental Health Issues: http://abcnews.go.com/News/santa-barbara-shooting-police-face-difficulty-working-mental/story?id=23864247

Community Mental Health Act of 1963:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act

"He was being treated by multiple therapists, according to the lawyer, and had been diagnosed as “a high-functioning patient with Asperger syndrome.”: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/24/the-disturbing-internet-footprint-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

He Who Ignores History Is Doomed To Repeat It

With the increasing volatility in the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I would like to take this time to look back at a blog that I wrote about the "weakness" of JFK and how that same weakness is being played out today with Barack Obama. The blog I am referencing, written in March of 2008, long before Obama was even elected, was titled: Are We Ready For the Mistakes Of J.F.K., Again?

"We've seen it all before. In 1960, the electorate got behind a young, dynamic, and good-looking candidate named John F. Kennedy. His speeches moved this country. At that time, he was destined to be the "first" Catholic President. But aside from all that fluff, he had little experience; and in the world of foreign affairs, it showed.

One of the things that JFK gets praise for was the Cuban Missile Crisis. But, that crisis, in my mind and the minds of some historians, was a crisis of his own making. It came about because the then-Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, saw weakness in John F. Kennedy. He saw weakness when Kennedy miserably failed to properly implement the Bay of Pigs invasion by not supporting that invasion with the proper military backup. The way Kennedy handled the post-Bay of Pigs Invasion negotiation for prisoners was also seen as being weak. Khrushchev saw even more weakness during the earliest meetings with Kennedy. And, that belief was never more evident when Nikita Khrushchev stated this now famous line: "We will bury you!" Khrushchev would never have put missiles in Cuba if he had thought Kennedy was strong. Much of the false memory of this event seems to imply that Kennedy, through his strength and determination, simply made Khrushchev back down and come to his knees. However, Khrushchev only conceded pulling the missiles out of Cuba after we agreed to remove our missiles from the borders of Turkey.

Like Kennedy, Barack Obama feels that we can "talk" to our enemies. Kennedy made this a centerpiece of his Administration when, in his Inaugural Address, he said: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate..." Barack Obama has quoted this famous line and made it clear that he, too, will talk to our enemies like Ahmadinejad of Iran. But, "talking" is seen by a dictatorial aggressor like Khrushchev and Ahmadinejad as a form of weakness. To an Ahmadinejad or a Khrushchev, "talks" with the mighty United States give them a sense of power; a sense of equality, or even, superiority. In their minds, the fact that the United States is "talking" to them must mean that the U.S. fears them. It's an adrenaline rush!

Just like Kennedy talking to Khrushchev while Khrushchev was preparing to put missiles into Cuba, you can expect the same kind of goings on from an Ahmadinejad or a Hugo Chavez or a Kim Jong Il, while Obama talks and talks his head off and tries to make nice with these, our enemies."

No matter what anyone thinks, Obama is a weak international and domestic leader. On the international front, he's being tested by the likes of Kim Jong Il. The same is true with Iran. Turkey and Brazil's alliance with Iran is another direct result of that perception of weakness. Because of this, we are now even weaker in our attempts to thwart Iran's ambitions to gain nuclear superiority in the Middle East. The same is true with Turkey's backing of the flotilla that is attempting to break Israel's Gaza Strip blockade of Hamas. The mere fact that Turkey is even backing this action shows that they believe that Israel has been abandoned by Obama; especially after the most recent put-down of Israel in the security council over Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It was also apparent from how badly Obama treated Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in their last meeting at the White House.

With Obama, our friends are our enemies, and our enemies are taking us for a ride. Not only is this President repeating JFK's mistakes but, he is also a very bad replicant of the failed and foolish leadership of Jimmy Carter. I fear that, at any minute, we could see a major international conflict breakout. One that was totally spawned by Obama and his lack of international leadership and strength that should come with being the President of the most powerful county in the world.

The Putin Test

Almost a week and a half ago on August 8, when Russia rolled into parts of the Republic of Georgia, both John McCain and Barack Obama hit the airways with their individual comments on this serious situation. McCain was clear in his statement that Russia should stop their aggression and that there should be an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to resolve the crisis (See Full Story).

Obama, on the other hand, showed his weakness by calling for "both" parties to show restraint (See Full Story). How stupid was that! Should a person or party getting pummeled by someone who is bigger than them "show restraint"? Since then, Obama has now come closer to McCain's initial position from his initially weak position.

I think Obama failed the "Putin Test". If I were Vladamir Putin, I would be happy to see an Obama as the President of the United States. With McCain in office, he might have to be a lot more cautious. Obama's failing of this test just reflects what I had previously said in my blog entry: "Are We Ready For The Mistakes Of J.F.K., Again?" (Click for popup link to that blog entry). Once again, history is in the midst of another period when Russia is on the move. Do we really want another charismatic but totally unprepared rookie in the White House during such a critical period?

Image by azrainman's photostream* on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing. All rights retained. (Click to View Other Works).

Are We Ready For the Mistakes Of J.F.K., Again

We've seen it all before. In 1960, the electorate got behind a young, dynamic, and good-looking candidate named John F. Kennedy. His speeches moved this country. At that time, he was destined to be the "first" Catholic President. But aside from all that fluff, he had little experience; and in the world of foreign affairs, it showed.

One of the things that JFK gets praise for was the Cuban Missile Crisis. But, that crisis, in my mind and the minds of some historians, was a crisis of his own making. It came about because the then-Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, saw weakness in John F. Kennedy. He saw weakness when Kennedy miserably failed to properly implement the Bay of Pigs invasion by not supporting that invasion with the proper military backup. The way Kennedy handled the post-Bay of Pigs Invasion negotiation for prisoners was also seen as being weak. Khrushchev saw even more weakness during the earliest meetings with Kennedy. And, that belief was never more evident when Nikita Khrushchev stated this now famous line: "We will bury you!" Khrushchev would never have put missiles in Cuba if he had thought Kennedy was strong. Much of the false memory of this event seems to imply that Kennedy, through his strength and determination, simply made Khrushchev back down and come to his knees. However, Khrushchev only conceded pulling the missiles out of Cuba after we agreed to remove our missiles from the borders of Turkey.

Like Kennedy, Barack Obama feels that we can "talk" to our enemies. Kennedy made this a centerpiece of his Administration when, in his Inaugural Address, he said: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate..." Barack Obama has quoted this famous line and made it clear that he, too, will talk to our enemies like Ahmadinejad of Iran. But, "talking" is seen by a dictatorial aggressor like Khrushchev and Ahmadinejad as a form of weakness. To an Ahmadinejad or a Khrushchev, "talks" with the mighty United States give them a sense of power; a sense of equality, or even, superiority. In their minds, the fact that the United States is "talking" to them must mean that the U.S. fears them. It's an adrenaline rush!

Just like Kennedy talking to Khrushchev while Khrushchev was preparing to put missiles into Cuba, you can expect the same kind of goings on from an Ahmadinejad or a Hugo Chavez or a Kim Jong Il, while Obama talks and talks his head off and tries to make nice with these, our enemies.