JOY BEHAR: I want to know what you think a Republican would do that the Democrats can’t do?
ANN COULTER: Well, I don’t want to sound too wonky, but it would be-. Peter Ferrara keeps writing about –
BEHAR: Who is he?
COULTER: -he’s just a brilliant writer, economist, I think he’s with CATO. And he keeps writing: “okay, this is what Reagan did to turn the Carter economy around, you know, cut regulation, cut taxes, this, that.” He says Obama looks like he studied what Reagan did and did exactly the opposite, and when I came on your show when you were sitting in for Larry King it was about a month into the Obama administration and I believe I was pessimistic about him turning the economy around because he’s doing all of the things, micro managing from the top, big government, raise taxes.
BEHAR: But he hasn’t been able to raise the taxes, the taxes are still in place.
COULTER: The debt’s going up. Taxes are going to have to go up at some point.
BEHAR: You heard that, you heard that. That’s a Republican saying that.
COULTER: Well, because the debt’s going up because you’re spending.
BEHAR: Well how are you going to solve it if you don’t have any revenue coming in? You’ve got to do something.
COULTER: Well what- well what this is, and this is counterintuitive, but you must trust me on this, it’s in every Thomas Sowell book ever written. When Reagan cut taxes, each year, as the taxes went down, revenue to the treasury went up. When people say, which is disingenuous and sort of a sleight of hand, is, “yes, but the deficit grew.” That’s because for each additional dollar he brought in, congress would spend three more dollars. I mean, you can’t overcome that, but more revenue came into the treasury the more you cut because people-
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Then how do you explain what happened once Bush got in? Because we had money when, when Clinton left. So what has happened? I know you have,I know you have an idea.
COULTER: It was, and this is so going to drive your viewers away, but I mean we know
GOLDBERG: Believe me. You can’t drive them away. A lot of stuff will drive them away, but not you. Trust us.
COULTER: We do know it came from – thank you – we do know it came from the housing market crash, and you had the government – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, pushing these politically correct, suicidal loans, they were allowing unemployment benefits to be used as collateral for mortgages. Then you have the big banks.
BEHAR: And who allowed that?
COULTER No no no, oh, no. You cannot blame the Republicans on that. Just let me finish the train before you get to that. The big banks –
BEHAR: You can’t?.
COULTER: – the big banks then bundled them to the mortgage-backed securities, they got spread out into everyone’s portfolio. So it was like a poison in the economy.
So she is basically reiterating the research done by Tom Sowell in “The Housing Boom and Bust”.
I don’t need to tell you about Tom Sowell – he is the official economist of the conservative movement. And Walter Williams is his wingman. If you want to see a 34-minute explanation of the housing crisis, click on this link. You can also read an article on the same topic here.
COULTER: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, paying congressional salaries.
GOLDBERG: So are we not all guilty, then?
GOLDBERG: Isn’t it both parties that have –
BEHAR: Screwed up.
GOLDBERG: – messed this up? Messed this up? It’s not just one. So shouldn’t we try to figure out how to fix it together?
COULTER: Yes. And Not only that, I’d even go beyond blaming the politicians. I mean, it is the people. It’s very hard to take their treats away. Once you start giving them the treats, –
GOLDBERG: That’s right.
COULTER: – to tell them we’re going to take them away is very hard.
GOLDBERG: That’s absolutely right. So it’s all of us.
BEHAR: A lot of is it is not treats. A lot of it is necessities, let’s not get on that track. It’s not treats for some people, Ann. Some people need the money. I would not have survived. When I – when I got fired from my job from Good Morning America, I was a single, divorced mother. If I didn’t have unemployment insurance, I would [censored].
COULTER: Ok. But how about treats being Social Security going to Donald Trump, because that’s the way the system is set up right now?
BEHAR: Well, fix that part.
So you have Joy Behar finally understanding that Paul Ryan is right – that Social Security payouts NEED TO BE MEANS-TESTED. Annhas to understand all of this if she is going to answer their challenges and WIN THE DEBATE.
Here is an article by Peter Ferrara, whom she mentioned.
In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.
President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.
About Peter Ferrara:
Peter Ferrara is Director of Policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and Senior Fellow for Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins, and was a contributing co-author of To Save America.
More Peter Ferrara here.
And what do we learn from this video clip? What we learn from this is that Christian women ought to be encouraged to get out there and get their degrees and become debate-enabled. Should marriage and children come along, then of course careers take a back seat to the need to produce the next generation of William Lane Craigs and Paul Ryans and Jennifer Roback Morses and Nancey Pearceys. But Ann isn’t married, and that means that winning debates is her responsibility.
And we are grateful for her because, using her prodigious intellect, she is able to go into places we could never go and build up conservatism as an intellectually-grounded movement. You can bet that the people on “The View” who have to debate Ann will have their attitudes to all conservatives subtly changed from the experience. This is how we build tolerance for ideas – one of us has to go in there and take them on, and in this case, it’s Ann Coulter.
I don’t have to agree with everything that she has said to see the value of what she did on that show. Just look at Joy Behar’s face. Joy cannot go back and demonize conservatives as easily after an experience with Ann Coulter like on this clip. This is how progressives realize that we cannot be demonized and villified and caricatured. Once they see one smarty conservative, they find it much harder to dismiss us. That’s why we need to be informed.