Are facts obsolete?

In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual.

As the hypnotic mantra of “change” is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s.

The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country’s problems, just because they say so — or say so loudly or inspiringly.

Politicians’ top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he “refines” his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.

Perhaps a defining moment in showing Senator Obama’s priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to “the rich” in the name of “fairness” gains more votes.

Since about half the people in the United States own stocks — either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks — socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to “the rich.” But, again, that is one of the many facts that don’t matter politically.

What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of “the people” against “the privileged.”

If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire — as Social Security is unlikely to do — you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric.

Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not.

Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers.

That’s their problem. A politician’s problem is how to look like he is for “the poor” and against those who are “exploiting” them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.

Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced “peace in our time” — just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.

Senator Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today — and his political popularity is what it’s all about. The consequences for the country come later.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Are facts obsolete?

Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 11:01am.

Apparently so for Sowell. Comparing the disastrous Republican Party’s Smoot-Hawley legislation of 1929 to NAFTA is just silly. For one thing inports in 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP. Also, blaming unemployment at 9% when Smoot-Hawley was passed and 16% the next year, while ignoring the other aspects of the Great Depression, could only be done by an economist without a grasp of reality or one with a firm grasp on a political agenda; or both as in Sowell’s case.

“When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.”

Yes, because unfortunately this claim is not true and has been refuted over and over again. Don’t we all wish it were true!

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provides the definitive study and review of this claim here:

No Free Lunch

They found:

“In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts have not paid for themselves, and economic growth and revenue growth over the course of the recovery have not been particularly strong.”

And:

“Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less. Moreover, in its recent “dynamic analysis” of the impact of making the President’s tax cuts permanent, the Treasury Department reported that even under favorable assumptions, extending the tax cuts would have only a small effect on economic output. That small positive economic impact would offset no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts’ cost.”

But facts are irrelevant to Sowell although I wish this “fact” really was one.

Sowell cleverly phrases his next argument: “Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates?” not actually telling was what does “actually happen”.

Then: “Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world…”

Yes, they may; although I noticed that Sowell didn’t. Maybe because the 2006 definitive study on this topic by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, an organization composed of the Governments of 30 democracies and the EU, found that there was virtually no relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment. You want a job, i.e. employment, then get an education.

Boosting Jobs and Incomes

However the most embarrassing part of the article by Sowell has to be the end: “Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.”

Don’t you know he feels stupidly foolish putting out this Republican talking point opinion the very week that Bush and company decided to talk to Iran?

Read your emails Thomas. I’m sure they sent you notification that they were doing a 180 degree spin on this one before your column came out. If you’re going to be a shill, at least try to keep up.

login to post comments