Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

teddpotts — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:39:18 GMT

Due to increasing state, local, and federal taxes, as well as the costs of regulation, the private sector, as a percentage of the total US economy, has shrunk dramatically over the last 100 years - and the shrinkage has accelerated dramatically over the last year. Jack Kemp tried to help reverse that trend, and his efforts were somewhat successful. It is that success for which you criticize him.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

fitzwilliam — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:15:47 GMT

Other than the single throwaway line in Hirsh's bio, ".... writing about foreign affairs and international economics.", I don't see reference to any experience in the field of economics. Certainly there's nothing in Hirsh's bio that qualifies him to disparage Jack Kemp's views and knowledge in the field.

The inference here must be that it’s a slow day for news, and the left-leaning blog quota must somehow be filled. Just another unqualified, less than objective column from the blogosphere.

And perhaps another example of "The dangers of amateurism" !

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

jbasc — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:38:38 GMT

Hirsh graduated magna *** laude from Tufts University in 1979 with a B.A. in philosophy. He also holds a graduate degree from Columbia University in international and public affairs.

A nice broad degree apparently makes you an expert in everything. Maybe his time should be spent writing real pieces featuring real research, but blogs are fun and god knows America needs more hard hitting mail-in opinion pieces. I like how the current economic crisis is now caused by supply side economics and over leveraging in the public sector and not poorly regulated/researched housing loans and over leveraging in the private sector.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

halljames54@yahoo.com — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:48:53 GMT

I found that I disagreed with Jack Kemp most of the time on his politics but he had a sincere interest in helping the poor and improving the lives of innercity population.

James Hall

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

oakley7247 — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:58:40 GMT

Its funny how these idiots (like Hirsh) are so susceptible to groupthink, even in the face of a reality that contradicts what they so desperately want to believe. Keynesian economics has NEVER worked, not even the New Deal can be held up as an example of a Keynesian success. Likewise, look at what high taxes is doing to places like NYC - it's shrinking revenue. I am simply flabbergasted that "intellectuals" believe that those who society likes to tax will continue to just make money and support the rest of society. It just absolutely abandons reason.

Speaking of amateur - tell me Hirsh, are deficits merely created by tax revenue decline? Of course not, you could create deficits by doubling your tax revenue, but quadrupling your spending. (Hint, hint).

The attacks continue on a simple theory that says expand the tax base, lower taxes and you'll boom the economy. From that boomed economy comes higher tax revenues. Would you rather have 50% of a dollar, or 5% of 100 dollars? It's really that simple...yet these "intellectuals" continue to attack this basic reality.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

uknowiamright.com — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:04:25 GMT

Was this was written by an amateur? I was not enthused with Kemp, he lost his conservative way and became a professional politician. Amateurs should be respected as they are often correct, especially ones like Reagan. But how could Reagan be an amateur, two successful terms?

Could I be going down the wrong road? We know Obama is the ultimate amateur. So possibly Michael Hirsh (the writer) his logic.

Professional status does not always bestow correctness or wisdom, nor does it make one a respected pundit.

My amateur status http://www.uknowiamright.com

Amateurs for surgery need not apply.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

rtaylortitle — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:39:22 GMT

The only thing "simplistic" and a tremendous myth at that is the idea that the market can be regulated, sir. That has been tried since Teddy Roosevelt and gotten progressively(and I use that word advisedly) worse with The New Frontier, The Great Society, and now the dreameister himself, Obama. How does a government bureaucrat, much less the Fed, anticipate and calculate the billions of economic decisions and priorities that the citizens of this country make every day? That sir, is a myth and simplistic. The spontaneous coordination made by the populace every day in their personal economies adds up to a free market of supply and demand. I'll take the market over the government's decisions any day of the week!!!! You really need to read "Atlas Shrugged" and "listen" to the message. Govt. planning is a total waste of tax-payer dollars. You don't spend yourself out of debt. That's another socialist/fascist "simplistic" & Keynesian error.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

GrantDWilliams — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:14:23 GMT

There is no such thing as "an unholy mixture of Arthur Laffer and Ayn Rand." Arthur Laffer and his curb (the only thing he is known for) is merely a convoluted attempt on the part of fundamentally-altruistic convervatives to have their free-market and their welfare state, too. It's the sort of typical short-term, unprincipled, utilitarian, NON-PHILOSOPHICAL approach to individual rights and capitalism that has pock-marked the right wing since before the Declaration of Independence.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, made those very same conservatives sick with her uncompromising rejection of religion (and the altruistic ethic Christ's crucifixion personifies), and her principled, unapologetic denunciation of the welfare not merely as a "noble, but unworkable ideal", but as morally obscene; both in theory AND in practice.

If Newsweek is going to claim to be a serious publication, it's writers and editors need to be more careful with their rhetoric.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

conradsundol — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:13:27 GMT

There's an old famous saying- 'The sins of the fathers are passed down to their progeny'. The application to our current mess is- 'The sins of past administrations are passed down to present and future administrations'. We're in this mess because of a myriad of blunders (including plain old greed) by many in the political, business and academic worlds. We'll have temporary solutions and that's all that we can ever hope for.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

2009fedup2009 — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:50:44 GMT

The left seems to forget that Reagan beat communism by outspending them, since we couldn't beat them(see Vietnam :Wikipedia). This prevented most of their murderous reign Communism=kill half +others obey). Hence deficits. Furthermore "biggest deficits since WWII" are because of 9/11, World Trade Center attack #1,USS Cole Bombing,and any number of bleeding heart causes for us to protect the innocent worldwide(Somalia,Beirut,Panama,El Salvador,Haiti,Croatia etc. etc.). How Long before Pres. or U.N. drags us into Africa, Mexico or Gaza? I'm not an isolationist but I think your article is a bit of revisionist history. Lastly, I find it pathetic to kick a dead man !

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

joelpalmer — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:30:45 GMT

Reagan, Laffer, Kemp, Stockman all frauds; simply tools of Annenberg, Dart, Holmes Tuttle and other billionaires who had one objective; cut their own taxes (and hang everyone else)

You now know th e result: deficits forever; debt that cannot even be comprehended and a ruined economy. All to serve a few hundred super rich plutocrats. Pathetic.

At least Poppy Bush called it right: voo doo

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

Zombiepress — Tue, 05 May 2009 02:31:21 GMT

Cripes, what drivel. If the Bush administration's deficits were "total fecklessness," I assume the latest $1.7 trillion installment must be "near infinite fecklessness." Apparently amateurs accumulate deficits in the $400 billion a year range. Only professionals can top a trillion a year.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

drmusic — Tue, 05 May 2009 03:54:09 GMT

Sheesh! Michael Hirsch starts out saying "One does not want to be disrespectful of the dead"...obviously Michael Hirsch is not that one!

He talks about the "Dangers of Amateurism". Let's see...what has amateurism given us? About everything. The light bulb, the telephone, this United States.

The missing piece, Mr. Hirsch, is the "piece" that Michelle Obama wants to take from us ("Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."). The truth (this varies slightly by year and by source) is that the wealthiest 50% pay 97% of the taxes already; the top 5% pay 57% and the top 1% pay 37% of all the income taxes. Raise taxes high enough and many of those could just go off-shore or just chose to live on the vast amounts of money they have and not make any more for, oh, say about 4 years until the tax rates go down. Who will make up the difference and with these new give-aways, it will be staggering with all the pork that Congress pumped into this 'bail-out".

Even in RUSSIA, they found that when they lowered the tax rate, they actually took in quite a bit more money...people that had not been paying decided that they could.

We need MORE amatuers especially in congress, instead of the ivory-tower professional statesmen that have no idea how the real world lives.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

wgburdett — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:58:46 GMT

So letting people determine how to spend their money instead of the government is a "simplistic free-market idea" proffered by amateurs. Give me a break!

How about the biggest amateur to be elected, Obama, spending us in to oblivion? I beleive Regan was the Governor of California, not a community organizer. Somehow spending money on thousands of the Democrats pet projects is going to grow the economy. What do you call that? Such spending is not only amateurish but irresponsible. Not only is the amateur President Obama failing to address the issues of Social Security and Medicare, but he is adding a tremendous interest cost to these obligations. Can the taxpayers pay for all this spending? I have not even mentioned the amateuristic ideas of Cap and Trade (which will only increase the cost of energy for everyone) or goverment provided health care.

People we can not afford Obama the most amateurist President ever.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

nowhereman1280 — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:47:40 GMT

"Those deficits later inspired Bill Clinton to focus his entire economic program on lowering interest rates early in his first term."

Huh? I think you need to check your facts Mr. Hirsh. The executive branch (as well as legislative and judicial for that matter) has NO control over interest rates. Interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve Bank which is supposed to be politically independent and uninfluenced by the opinions of lawmakers. Do you know who lowered interest rates? It was Alan Greenspan. Greenspan's years were marked by constantly driving down interest rates whenever there was even a hint of recession.

Its especially ironic that Mr. Hirsh would make such an amateur comment when the driving down of interest rates to increase consumer spending over the past 20 or 25 years is the root cause of this mess. Why do you think so many American's have so much debt? Let me give you a hint: Supply and Demand. When the rates go down it is because the fed is creating more money, the interest rate is nothing but the price of money. Therefore the price of money or "borrowing" has been very low for almost 25 years. What do you do when the price of something is low? Do you buy more or less of it? You buy more, therefore the low price of money has encouraged American's to take on more and more debt. Eventually all the responsible consumers of debt had taken on as much as they could consume. Then the government lowered rates again post 9-11. Since almost all responsible borrowers were too debt laden to even contemplate borrowing more (consuming more debt) the banks had to find someone else to lend to in order to keep making money. Guess who they found to lend to: Subprime borrowers. THAT is where the subprime mess came from. It wasn't some Keynesian wet dream of a conspiracy between Laffer and Rand. It was the foolish notion in our federal government that A. the government should control interest rates and B. that credit is a fundamental human right that should be accessible to all Americans regardless of their financial ability.

I love how pop culture and the media are full of people with a megaphone ranting about topics they are clearly completely uneducated on. Maybe the government wouldn't get away with clearly foolish ideas (like the idea that we can take on unlimited debt for an unlimited time in the private or public sector) if the media actually employed educated writers to truly explain how things work and what is happening to the average American.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

mdaok — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:11:33 GMT

Again Newsweek has presented the socialist view, will they also present the traditional American view on how America operates its business. The article is something I would expect to see written by Fidel Castro, Hugo Cheves or the community organizer Barack Obama. Maybe I opened up the Cuban Addition of Newsweek by mistake.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

chiefagc — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:09:50 GMT

Well if you won't blame him, I will. He was not a bright man- he only had a BS and it was in Phys Ed. Why the hell did anyone listen to him? Reagan was even dumber, like Limbaugh and that crying fool Beck- all dummies who had little or no formal education. And don't tell me that Lincoln didn't either- that was then, this is now and Lincoln did a lot of studying unlike the other four ignoramouses

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

chiefagc — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:16:11 GMT

wgburdett

Speak of dumb republicans and we get "the most amateurist..." from this republican burdett. Are

they all stupid?

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

pantonettijr — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:27:08 GMT

First, this is first time I have decided to respond to an editorial from Newsweek or any other "publication." I find it fitting that it is to defend the record of Jack Kemp. I am not going to start by defending supply side economics because I have had many conversations about this with my liberal friends. They just don't get it. All of the politicians and media want to focus on the revenue side of the equation. However, the real problem with Washington and the media is that they don't want to recognize the main problem: runaway spending in Washington. As a result, we are now in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. However, all you in the media want to do is to take shots at Kemp who is not here to defend himself. I will stand up for him though as I can see others have as well, including the WSJ editor on Monday (please read it).

The Age of Obama will end just like every other liberal figure in American politics, in economic and foreign policy failure.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

SeattleGuy — Wed, 06 May 2009 05:03:23 GMT

To all of you who continually refer to Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugs", I want to point out that Greenspan admitted a year or so ago, that many of his basic beliefs were wrong. He was alluding to the fact that free markets can operate without the corruption of human greed. In other words, Rand was wrong. If we have learned nothing in the last few years, we certainly have learned that the Wall Street bankers are far from perfection. Without the financial products that were derived after Reagan and other Republicans decimated the protections in place since the Great Depression ended, we would not have arrived at the abyss of another depression. In fact, tax cuts made sense when they were dropped under JFK from 91 to 70%!!! They make absolutely no sense under the current financial circumstance.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

LaserGuidedLoogie — Wed, 06 May 2009 05:38:05 GMT

I had to laugh when I read this. Basically, a bunch of social marxist at newsweek think that the Republicans would be better off if they were more like...social marxist.

As for amateurs, the Newsweek staff, as well as their fellows travelers at other mainstream media outlets, aren't even amateurs when it comes to economics. They are criminally stupid.

Jack Kemp was right about taxes and he was wrong about embracing the melting pot. I don't know what the fatuous lefties at Newsweek are crying about though. The Republican party long ago embraced the big government/high spending model of the Democrats. Claiming that the Republicans are fundamentally different in that regard is just journalistic malpractice.

Ken

http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

Epiphany — Wed, 06 May 2009 11:16:46 GMT

No doubt about it: Kemp the ameteur economist was into "Reaganomics" before Reagan the ameteur economist ever was. But Reagan soon came around, America bought their bill of goods, and the rich got richer leaving my kids with one heck of a hangover debt. Oh... and Mr. Cheney, you're right, "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter." At least not politically in the short term. But what a dangerous, irresponsible and devestatingly expensive lesson to learn. Now America: joins the ranks of the third world nations while China prepares to take over.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

Carney — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:16:46 GMT

The Kemp-Roth tax cuts did not cause the deficits of the 80s. Revenue DOUBLED from 82 to 89 (the years Reagan's fiscal policies were in effect). Let me repeat with a megaphone held directly to the ear: REVENUE DOUBLED. REVENUE DOUBLED. REVENUE DOUBLED!!

Got that?

The problem was that spending rose even faster than that. And who was responsible? Congress, dominated by Democrats in the House. Every year Reagan's budgets were rejected by Congress for not spending enough. They'd pass bills that spent more than he wanted. Sometimes he'd veto them, sometimes there were standoffs and government shutdowns. In the end they'd compromise and pass something but it was always Congress pushing to spend more overall than the President wanted.

The problem was not Reagan and Kemp and tax cuts. It was SPENDING.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

blackbird555 — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:15:28 GMT

If amateurism is the problem, Obama would be a train wreck.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

wrybreadspread — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:31:31 GMT

the Reagan defecits are a moot point. So are the Charles Keating saving and loan scandals. So is the speculative investing that begat the Great Depression. Don't even sweat the Iraq war spending. The trillions George W. Bush--whom I voted for--gave to bail out Wall Street have to be the the most potentially ruinious government spending I've seen in my 50ish lifetime. And Barak Obama--whom I did not vote for--threw accelerant on the fire by allocating trillions more. As Bette Davis said--it's going to be a bumpy ride.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

SouthFork — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:23:12 GMT

One of the comments indicates Tax Revenues doubled during the Reagan years. Actually according to the Heritage Foundation website, inflation adjusted tax revenues increased about 36%. Any growth above this was due to inflation. Regarding spending, the main driver of increased spending during the Reagan years was defense spending.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

johnnylucid — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:10:26 GMT

On the negative side, your commentary is snarky, cheap, mean-spirited and intellectually shallow.

On the positive side, your commentary is a useful reminder of why I don't subscribe to Newsweek.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

funkdome — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:17:24 GMT

Typical of this hyper-partisan liberal rag to attack a guy right after his death. What a disgrace.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

peterocks42 — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:08:41 GMT

Another Digusting article trashing a GREAT man,who is not even cold in the grave yet.Newsweek,is another example of a magaizine going off the cliff to please the MoveOn.Org loons. Boycott Newsweek,do us all a favor,and let this rag die a lonely death!

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

stmichrick — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:51:58 GMT

This is your economics editor?

No wonder Newsweek is in decline.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

mjkbk — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:25:45 GMT

"One does not want to be disrespectful of the dead". Yeah right. But Michael Hirsh gave it the old college try anyway. Hope you didn't bruise your fingers, Michael (or sprain your ankle rushing to your keyboard), being FORCED to type those words one does not want to write.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

Jim1348 — Sat, 30 May 2009 10:08:18 GMT

The voters, who are supposed to have a brain in a democracy, bought it.

re: Jack Kemp: The dangers of amateurism

Hal Fyre — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:08:53 GMT

All of these supply-siders have "misunderestimated" the severity of this crisis. A year ago, they wouldn't even admit a recession was imminent. Now they blame Obama and the Dems for the malaise, alleging it was caused by overspending, overtaxing and overregulating. What a joke!

As accurately identified above, the real recipe for this toxic supply-side meal was concoted by the revered master chef, Ronald Reagan, and sous chef Jack Kemp, who put together an economic heart-stopping menu of large portions of consumer over-consumption, deep-fried in foreign oil, topped with with a heavy helping of unbelievably rich tax cuts, accompanied by a large, fatty serving of deficit pork, all prepared in a filthy, rat infested, unregulated kitchen, and washed down with Uncle Milty's monetary policy kool-aid (which, like real Kool-Aid, looks and smells good to a childish brain, but in reality has no nutritional value).

Not to be outdone, good ol' boy George W. Bush took the original recipe, doubled the portions, smothered it in a basic ("fundamental" may be a better word) syrupy Southern-style homily sauce, added a puffy, whipped CDO souffle (looks big and delicious but mostly hot air) followed by an expensive sweet revenge flambe dessert (or was it "desert"?) that tasted good at first but seems to last forever. Same vintage kool-aid, served by Reagan's sommelier, Alan Greenspan.

They all told us not to worry about bill, we really didn't have pay it. Just pass it on to the next suckers waiting for a table (even if the suckers happen to be our kids). Now the bill has come due and all of our credit cards are tapped out. We're way overweight and they're dragging us back to the kitchen to do the dishes. No wonder we're having economic cardiac arrest.