Miscellaneous 102

1) In order to solve a problem, you need to come up with something that is both tangible AND realistic. And, yes, that is why I strongly support Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, and the Gang of 6 - at least as a starting point - for deficit reduction....The fact of the matter here, folks, is that we simply CANNOT appreciably close the deficit with either spending-cuts or revenue enhancements alone. WE HAVE TO DO BOTH, and everybody has to sacrifice, a little. And, I'm telling you, if we did pass something like this, and accompanied it with some sort of regulatory reform (strengthen the good regs, eliminate the crappy ones), too, the markets in fact WOULD respond. Businesses - they have to know that we're serious and passing something like this would show them that we totally are.............2) To repeat, I would also institute a comprehensive regulatory reform package. We have to, folks. The Feds are literally piling on thousands upon thousands of new rules and regs annually (some of them downright silly; the packaging of walnuts, for example), and it is absolutely stifling the creation of new businesses. If I had my druthers, I would go line by line and a) reinforce the good rules and regulations and b) eliminate the bald-faced crap.............3) Hoover and FDR essentially did everything that Keynesian economics prescribes; massive amounts of deficit spending, huge public works initiatives, a palpable loosening of credit, and a heavy emphasis on central planning, and the Great Depression lasted 12 years. Harding did the exact opposite of what Keynesian theory prescribes; major cuts in federal spending, an allowing of the private sector to flourish, and an actual tightening of credit, and the depression of 1921 lasted less than 18 months....Now, this isn't necessarily to say that this proves anything. As I've stated before, economics isn't an area in which controlled experimentation can happen (and, hence, causality inferred). But it is, at the very least, interesting, no?............4) Just to be fair and balanced here, stifling levels of regulation don't just happen under Democratic Presidents. In 2007, for example (the next to last year of the Bush administration), nearly 4,000 (!!) new regulations hit the books that year alone. Thank you, President Bush.