Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
This Week's "Your Turn" Radio Lineup

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

 

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute - An Epidemic of Loneliness;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Ross Marchand, Director of Policy for Taxpayers Protection Alliance - Unwarranted Carcinogenic Classifications and How the US Government is About to Drive Up the Cost of Videogames;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste - 2019 Congressional Pig Book;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Marlo Lewis…[more]

June 17, 2019 • 12:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Shock: New York Times Begins 2018 Admitting Trump Economic Bump Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, January 04 2018
Today, economists even expect that growth for Trump's first year will exceed 3%, something that hasn't occurred in over a decade.

We experienced eight years of leftist economic policies under Barack Obama, and now a full year of deregulatory, low-tax economics under Donald Trump. 

So based upon the accumulated evidence, which one works? 

When even The New York Times can no longer deny the inescapable Trump Bump, you know that debate is over. 

On January 1, the Times began the year 2018 in a manner that must've been particularly painful: 

A wave of optimism has swept over American business leaders, and it is beginning to translate into the sort of investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades that bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation - and may finally raise wages significantly. 

While business leaders are eager for the tax cuts that take effect this year, the newfound confidence was initially inspired by the Trump administration's regulatory pullback, not so much because deregulation is saving companies money but because the administration has instilled a faith in business executives that new regulations are not coming. 

Just as stunningly, the Times unfavorably contrasted the Obama's eight-year experiment in hyper-regulation: 

[T]here is a perception that years of increased environmental, financial and other regulatory oversight by the Obama administration dampened investment and job creation - and that Mr. Trump's more hands-off approach has unleashed the "animal spirits" of companies that had hoarded cash after the recession of 2008. 

Keep in mind that this is the same Times that features columnist Paul Krugman, Princeton economics professor and ideological northstar of the deranged left, who predicted on election night 2016 that Trump would lead to a market crash from which we would "never" recover.  "It really does now look," Krugman wrote, "like Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging.  When might we expect them to recover?  We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight." 

Instead, markets both in the U.S. and globally surged sharply upward to record high after record high. 

And the kicker, as the Times article alluded above, is that the first major tax reform in three decades hasn't even taken effect: 

And with tax cuts coming and a generally improving economic outlook, both domestically and internationally, economists are revising growth forecasts upward for last year and this year.  Even before it became clear that the Republicans would pass a major tax cut, capital spending had risen significantly, climbing at an annualized rate of 6.2 percent during the first three quarters of last year.  Surveys of planned spending also show increases. 

Unfortunately but perhaps predictably, the Times couldn't resist attempting to throw an editorial wet blanket onto the report: 

The evidence is weak that regulation actually reduces economic activity or that deregulation stimulates it.  But business executives are largely convinced that the cost of complying with the rules diverts money that could be invested elsewhere.  And economists see a plausible connection between Mr. Trump's determination to prune the federal rule book and the willingness of businesses to crank open their vaults.  Measures of business confidence have climbed to record heights during Mr. Trump's first year. 

Did you catch that? 

The Times admits that business leaders whose jobs are on the line trust the value of deregulation, but nevertheless asks us to believe its reporters' wholly subjective and summary claim that regulation doesn't reduce economic growth and that deregulation doesn't stimulate it. 

That echoes the refrain of stubborn leftists and Obama apologists, who claim that this is all merely a continuation of Obama's trajectory. 

But even a passing review of the evidence refutes that assertion.  Entering 2017, most economists actually believed that the economy's expansion was losing its legs, becoming a "sideways market."  Instead, growth and markets accelerated, and unemployment fell. 

Today, economists even expect that growth for Trump's first year will exceed 3%, something that hasn't occurred in over a decade. 

That economic resurgence applies to consumers as well, who account for approximately two-thirds of the U.S. economy.  Gallup just released its year-end "Annual Average Gallup U.S. Economic Confidence Index," and after stagnating at -10 for 2016, it immediately sprung upward to average +6 for 2017. 

It all adds up to an economy that has accelerated under the deregulatory and tax-cutting Trump, after showing the first signs of anemia before his election. 

Now, not even The New York Times denies it any longer. 

Question of the Week   
Where in the U.S. Constitution is the requirement for a decennial census?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Privacy expectations should not be lost just because digital and electronic information is transferred through wires or enters a remote server (the Cloud). If the government searched an individual's mail or home, it would need a warrant first. This same standard should apply to all property, including electronic data. But 48 of 50 states are failing to protect private data from government intrusion…[more]
 
 
—Anna Parsons, ALEC Center for Innovation and Technology
— Anna Parsons, ALEC Center for Innovation and Technology
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the 2020 U.S. Census add a multi-part question regarding U.S. citizenship, including specifically whether the respondent is or is not a U.S. citizen?