Ben Stein Slams Tax Cuts, Tea Partiers, Bush, and Obama as ‘Careless,’ But Praises Clinton
During a commentary aired on CBS Sunday Morning, supposedly right-leaning actor and economist Ben Stein blamed the "folly of supply side economics" - singling out President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in addition to President Obama’s spending - for the current federal budget deficit. The CBS contributor also complained that some Republicans have an "inflexible belief" that "low taxes were an American birthright."
He also complained that the Tea Partiers "insisted on the basically impossible, an immediate cut in federal spending, large enough to balance the budget without tax increases. In this age of Medicare and Medicaid, two wars, massive federal debt, interest payments, staggering Social Security obligations, that was simply impossible."
Invoking the Jordan Baker character from the Great Gatsby, he characterized all parties that he blamed as being "careless" people.
And, even though the balanced budgets of the late 1990s were largely the result of increased tax revenues that came with a booming economy - which notably also happened in the years after a capital gains tax cut was passed by a GOP-controlled Congress - Stein praised former President Bill Clinton for the balanced budget that existed when he left office.
Stein vaguely acknowledged the "Internet bubble" that helped fuel the 1990s economy, but still seemed to give Clinton credit for the balanced budget:
There's no doubt that Bill Clinton for all of his issues left the federal budget on a sound financial footing. It was undone by the bursting of the Internet bubble, the two wars following 9/11, but mostly because of the folly of supply side economics, which falsely assured Americans that they could have their cake and it a eat it, too. That large tax cuts would yield higher government revenue. There never was any convincing data to back it up...
Last April, Stein did a similar commentary attacking tax cuts on the same show, but, in September of last year, his commentary featured him complaining about the drive to raise taxes on the wealthy, leading Sy-Fy producer Linda McGibney to attack him personally on the next week’s show.
Below is a complete transcript of Stein’s commentary from the July 31 CBS Sunday Morning:
CHARLES OSGOOD: Feeling the urge to sound off about the national debt debate? So is our contributor Ben Stein.
BEN STEIN: There is a telling scene in the Great Gatsby where Jordan Baker, the shady golf pro, says, "I hate careless people. It takes two to make an accident."
BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS ANCHOR: The days are now dwindling down to a precious few.
LESTER HOLT, NBC ANCHOR: In President Obama's words, "We are almost out of time."
DIANE SAWYER, ABC ANCHOR: The debt stalemate in Washington-
STEIN: This comes to mind because of the budget, taxes, debt ceiling crisis the nation is going through. What we are seeing is a stupendous pile-up of immensely careless people who have been heading for trouble for more than a decade now. There's no doubt that Bill Clinton for all of his issues left the federal budget on a sound financial footing. It was undone by the bursting of the Internet bubble, the two wars following 9/11, but mostly because of the folly of supply side economics, which falsely assured Americans that they could have their cake and it a eat it, too. That large tax cuts would yield higher government revenue. There never was any convincing data to back it up, and there’s also supply side tax cuts were immense government deficits under Bush 43.
There was also another problem, an inflexible belief by some on the GOP side that low taxes were an American birthright. They're not. We're not immune to arithmetic. If we spend a lot, we have to tax a lot. Then came Mr. Obama's carelessness. His wild raise in the federal expenditure so that what had seemed like huge deficits under Bush 43 suddenly seemed modest. And then came the Tea Partiers who insisted on the basically impossible, an immediate cut in federal spending, large enough to balance the budget without tax increases. In this age of Medicare and Medicaid, two wars, massive federal debt, interest payments, staggering Social Security obligations, that was simply impossible.
So we have now got many careless persons making an accident. It now appears disaster has been averted in that the can has been kicked down the road at least for a while. That's not great, but it’s better than an immediate train wreck. If something cannot go on forever it will stop, said my famous father, but it can end horribly if people are careless enough. It's time for the grown-ups of the right and the left to stand up. Both parties got us into this mess and both parties have to get us out.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yo Ben
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:35am.
Which party held congress during Clinton?
kiwikit
Submitted by kiwikit on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:10am.
Sad. He used to be so rational. I'm still waiting for someone to show a list of
Fed offices and costs during W compared to that for BO. How many have been hired for obamacare? We may have trouble with budget numbers but surely one
can get salaries. Just how much are these czars costing us and for what? Ben,
what has Clinton been feeding you? The finance of this country has been in the hands of the 'RATs since they won the house in 2006, but the economy is still
'Bush's fault!'
kiwikit
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:42pm.
I use to like him also.I don't know what happen to Ben.
YEP...
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:51am.
But don't remind him of that fact it will blow his story to bits!
OldJarhead
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:40pm.
No memory also since they always forget Clinton had a Republican congress.
Way to go Ben
Submitted by melvin on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:50am.
Thanks Mr. Stein for being honest.
He's not saying
Submitted by as promised on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:50am.
anything that is shocking or hasn't been said before. The Clinton comment may be opinion but everything else is fact. You might not like hearing it from a RW but it is what it is. He is being a realist. You can have opposing views on how to move forward with the information but you cannot go back and change it.
Before You Pop The Bubbly
Submitted by Bourbeau on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:45am.
Before you celebrate Mr. Clinton's tenure, I suggest you take a hard look at what transpired on the regulatory front with EPA, OSHA, Fanny and Freedie, then tell me how incredibly successful his stewardship was. This crap that gets passed around as fact, conveniently forgets the other side of the story. What transpired during his presidency was volumes of regulation that our country is saddled with today, that impedes small business and provides lifetime employment to bureaucrats. That same nonsense continues from one administration to another. Here's a flash of brilliance for Ben Stein - stop whining about taxes and just stop spending. You can cut 15% from every agency today, and the world will still be here tomorrow; you can cut 5% from all of our discretionary outlays, and the world will be here tomorrow; and you can cut every freaking program in the govenment 25%; and no one will notice other then the blood suckers that take the money for their own benefit. As smart as Ben Stein is, rather then sticking to pontificating on facts and economic strategy, he becomes just another talking head, taking sides, and spewing nonsense for the less learned of our population to absorb.
some Republicans have an
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:09am.
some Republicans have an "inflexible belief" that "low taxes were an American birthright.
And most Democrats have an inflexible belief that all money belongs to the government, and Americans should be glad they get to keep as much of their earnings as they do.
For starters
Submitted by Franksam on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:25am.
And, as I recall, it was a question about value received for taxes paid that helped get this country started. That's still an issue, What are we getting for our money, other than being objects of the proverbial transitive verb?
Huh?
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:04am.
You don't feel like your getting screwed enough for the price you're paying?
If they tax you more, you get screwed more, but if they tax you less, you get screwed less.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
No thanks
Submitted by Franksam on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:27pm.
Loved the second link. Almost expected the 'products for sale listing' to include Tea Party Nike's. The transitive verb I suggested goes way past the rather congenial give and take you imply. "Screwed enough?" You need a new lexicon.
It is our birthright
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:10am.
The seeds of the American Revolution were sown before 1775 when the Crown insisted on paying its war debts off by imposing new taxes on the American colonists.
Mr. Stein is an old Beltway dweller, content with his status and holdings, and fearing change.
Prior to 1913, for over 100years, there were no Federal ...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:35am.
...income taxes. The Federal Government financed itself off import/export tariffs.
1913 was a bad year for Americans. An amendment to the Constitution passed that allowed for Federal income taxes and another allowed the direct election of state Senators by the people, thus setting up the conditions that have produced the Senate Panderers.
So, YES, low or no taxes are an American birthright.
Expelled
Submitted by spepper on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:18am.
Hmmm, is Ben Stein becoming the very malafactor he depicted in his own movie, "Expelled"? Sounds like he's been rejecting that "peer review" stuff he lamentated the disappearance of which....
I'm not sure why these moderate/liberal Democrats
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:26am.
always follow Clinton's led and lie about what he actually did as a president.
A republican controlled congress got the budget in working order not a liberal big spending president. The liberals lie because they have nothing else and the minions that follow their lies are more of a joke than they are.
So What?
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:38am.
Why should this entertainer's opinion carry any more weight than any one else's? Can anyone find an instance of anyone demanding "immediate" balancing of the budget? Can anyone find data that Keynesian economics has ever worked? He seems to be long on criticism and short on suggestions. . . other than tax, borrow, and spend.
He's never even been very entertaining.
He was valedictorian of his Yale Law class
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:14am.
after achieving an undergrad degree in Economics. He was a speech writer for both Ford and Nixon. He's been an adjunct professor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein.
This is not to refute your point, but just to point out that "entertainer" is not the best word for Stein.
I Was Perhaps Too Generous
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:08pm.
You are correct, "entertainer" is not the best word for Stein, but, since minors may read this, I won't use the "best" word.
As for his history, he may have his degree in economics, but his is not a practicing economist, he may have been a speech writer, but he is not a practicing speech writer, he may have been an adjunct professor but he doesn't make his living at it.
So what is the best word for him? It isn't "economist", it isn't "speech writer", it isn't "professor" and it isn't "entertainer". Maybe "self important, has been, and blowhard"? Of course I guess that isn't really a word.
A Serious Flaw In Stein's Reasoning
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:02am.
I like Ben Stein, but he has a serious flaw in his reasoning.
Stein points to the prosperity that the USA experienced from the late 1940s to the late 1960s while the top tax rate was relatively high. He sees this as a key, if not the reason why we can raise taxes on "the rich" now.
The flaw in his reason is that during that time period, the American economy was the only intact post war economy in the world! The American economy prospered because there was no other economy capable of competing with it. Many economists believe that you really had to try to fail during that period. In other words, the American economy prospered in spite of the the high tax rate on "the rich".
If you factor this in together with the fact that the real issue in Washington is out of control spending and not revenues, the solution becomes clear. The federal government must stop spending money it does not have!
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
+1 for the Jonah Goldberg
Submitted by redmike on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:36am.
+1 for the Jonah Goldberg book. A little slow to start, but very engaging once you get into it. Great history lesson, too.
Don't Forget the real Loopholes
Submitted by gopcongress on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:03pm.
Don't forget that just because the tax rate was high, there were several real loopholes that nets total income comparable to the Reagan cuts in the 80's. We actually have been paying higher tax rates because the loopholes have been shut down.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
It Seems To Me
Submitted by Bourbeau on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:44am.
We would all be better off if we stopped our unabated references to past periods,
presidents, and administrations - the world of today is different, and the policies of prior decades and centuries don't apply. Wake up and deal with the issues we have today and stop the whining about what Reagan did, or Bush didn't do, or how smart Clinton was. We have a goverment overburdened by the stupidity they spew every day. They're too big; they're too fat; and they're corrupt. We have no leadership; we have a President whose biggest worry of the day is his next speech. Since when is it a president's job to spend 70 percent of his time at different locations, spewing political horse manure, to captive audience? He should be back in DC, knocking heads, and showing some spine. He let this country run on automatic for two plus years, leaving it to the likes of Pelosi and Reid to muster the spending he's approved, and where did it get us? This country bought into Hope and Change, hook, line and sinker; they got what they deserved and now they don't like. Well, if you don't like it, change it, and for your own good, you had better change it fast.
Understanding The Past Is Key
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:14am.
Understanding the past is the key to knowing what to do now and into the future.
Charting federal government spending from Truman to Obama is how we know that what we are facing is spending problem, not a revenue problem.
History also shows that when the federal government has cut taxes (1920, early 1960s, early 1980s and early 2000s) the economy has returned to prosperity with the benefit of greater tax revenues than under the old, higher tax rates.
And, finally, by reading books like Liberal Fascism, you can gain an understanding of what Obama and democrats are really trying to do--carrying on what Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson started in the late 1800s-early 1900s; subverting the individual in favor of the collective (state) led by so-called "experts".
In fact, this is why Obama has so constantly insisted that tax increases be a part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling. He and the democrats will always seek to gain more power and control. Taxing "the rich" is one way for them to accomplish their ultimate goal.
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
There's a scary thought....
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:15am.
"subverting the individual in favor of the collective (state) led by so-called "experts". "
If the 'experts' that want to 'lead' us is the same bunch currently in control of the government WE have a very serious problem.
And now, back to ben.... Why yes Ben, I do believe that we can cut spending by nearly half and the only people that will be 'harmed' would be useless bureaucrats, corrupt politicians and the bottom dwellers that refuse to be responsible for their own care and upkeep.
The FAMILIES, Churches and other charitable organizations will respond to take care of those unable to fend for themselves and the rest of the leeches on society can go back to whatever third-world hell hole they came from and work to correct the problems back home.
The batf will be more than happy to load them up with firearms and ammunition to take with them.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Bill Clinton Era
Submitted by billyjack on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:32am.
I have to point out the reality of the fabulous Clinton economy.
1) He inherited the Reagan economy, plus the end of the cold war in 1989 that created worldwide economic growth in 3rd world countries for the first time since WWII.
2) The dot.com bubble was fraud just like Slick Willie(Ben that's the reason it burst) and by the way his reduction of capital gains taxes increased the government coffers as people took advantage with all the dot.com stock trading scams before it burst.
3) Oil prices were seldom over $20/bbl during his entire tenure.
4) He refused to confront Islamic terrorism, which set up Osama et al becoming more and more bold, by not confronting the attack on the Cole, Embassy bombings and let's not forget the insanity of sending our kids into Mogadishu.
5) He also had a more conservative congress as opposed to the secular socialist now in charge. Does no one remember Hillary care which was DOA?
Clinton also benefited from ALL the
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:51am.
Y2K activity. During a scheduled plant shutdown, GM rolled it's Corvette (lowest volume) plant's clock to Jan 1, 2000, just to take inventory. The first result came when they couldn't even get into the building because the security system failed. From 1997 on, GM considered Y2K fixes to be "mission critical", and as it was all overhead, they had to keep their lines as productive as possible to pay for the refit. Similar things happened all overthe manufacturing sector, and of course the IT sector was getting paid for all this.
I just want people to know that from the perspective of an IT consulting company in the 90s, Y2K was a big thing. To GM the bottom line was always the bottom line, but being able to run their business after 2000 took precedent from mid 1997 to 2000.
When I see an analysis of the "great Clinton economy" that does not factor this in, I'm always suspicious.
Stein is a constant.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:40am.
That's one thing I like about him. He doesn't change to please the Tea Party and he won't march lock-step with the left. He's a goad to many sides. I have also wondered why certain supply-siders always believe that no matter how much taxes are cut, we're always on the right-side of the Laffer curve.
Stein gave the address at my last corporate meeting with my former employers, he attributed the crash almost entirely on CDOs, although obliquely admitting that they were selling "bad debt", that they couldn't get anyone to swallow. I thought then that the origin of the "bad debt" deserved some exploration by Stein, instead of putting it all on people selling swap "assets" to bridge between the loss of value from defaults and the gain in value due to the appreciation of property. The defaults came from the "bad debt" part.
My guess is that as a former "poverty lawyer" he's just too devoted to social programs like the CRA, that he couldn't just excoriate the bad debt, but had to come down on the more immediate cause, the CDOs. Not the reporting laws that changed unrealized losses into realized losses and not the bad debt itself, which had to be compensated for. In this criticism, he fell in lockstep with the progressives. If it hadn't been for the CDOs, MBSs would have been toxic the day after Sarbanes-Oxley passed. Banks could not have packaged the mortgages that they were forced to make by the ACORN mob, and so would have had to take the hit directly, with any pushback resulting the regulators against any decision that banks needed regulator approval for.
Stein can score points for your side, but as a liberal republican (at best), sometimes you have to disregard what he says.
. . . and the horse you rode in on Ben!
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:56am.
These establishment Republicans don't like us Tea Partiers? Too dxmn bad!
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
There are several points that
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:55am.
There are several points that may be debated regarding Stein's statements. It is interesting to me that during a crisis concerning our debt and spending, we we see the real conservatives and then, we have Stein, a poser. But, let's take up one of his points - that of the deficit.
Stein talked about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.
So once more, a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 (note, budget planning was done starting in the spring of 2008 and this fiscal year began Oct 1, 2008) though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
When I used to read Ben
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:06am.
When I used to read Ben Stein's columns in the National Review, I always picked up on what seemed to have been an internal struggle between conservatism and "compassionate" liberalism. Then I'd remember that Stein, as a presumed Republican, didn't come out of the Reagan era, but Nixon's - who would hardly be what we consider a conservative today.
Stein claims the folly of
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:01am.
Stein claims the folly of supply-side economics is that "you can have your cake and eat it too."
But supply-side devotees never claim that tax cuts should be accompanied by massive and endless run-ups in spending. The idea of supply-side tax cuts is that cuts in marginal rates will keep more money in the private sector where it can more productively be employed and hence generate more commerce and jobs and hence the initial drop in tax revenue from the lowered rates will be temporary, that over time revenue will grow, not drop due to lower rates.
Of course, this is predicated on the Laffer Curve and theoretically there are levels of taxation that would be so low as to insufficiently fund the core mission of government. But we're not anywhere near that. We can have a strong but within-its-bounds federal government that sticks to its constitutional mission and have firm financial footing. Indeed, we did for the first 150 or so years of our constitutional republic.
Interesting...
Submitted by wiwf on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:17am.
Interesting...
I have been a fan of Mr.
Submitted by dtx007 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:19am.
I have been a fan of Mr. Stein for a long time, until now. I believe he has lived in Hollywood for to long. When is it right for me to work hard for my money to give it to someone else to spend how they see fit?????????? We need to clean out Washington and start over. The politicians and actors do not live in reality.
Same-Same
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:34am.
I have always considered David Brooks and Stein to be of the same ilk.
Ben Stein has fallen off his rocker.. and
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:33pm.
.. landed on his knocker.
Let's do the last part first, "That large tax cuts would not yield higher gov't [tax] revenue."
Really? Following the full implementation of the Bush stimulus [tax cuts], in 2003 - Tax revenue soared. Thanks to Tom Blumer for the graph. Looks "convincing" to me.
Now, the first part. Well, how do you say that Clinton left us on sound financial footing, when his economy collapsed in March of 2000? From that point on, the economy was not on sound financial footing.
Supply side economics? Well, Ben Stein, I think that we all understand that the late 90's Dot.com bubble was all about supply side economics, right? So if you're so opposed to that - and that is your right - why don't you call the Clinton economy what you believe it to be - all folly.
Go eat your own cake, Ben.
(;~> gary
Ben Stein, sadly, is a hack...
Submitted by Robert17 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:53pm.
He has been slamming supply side since Ferris Bueller's day off. If you don't believe me, go watch it again.
First off, the Bush tax cuts were not supply side. Bush cut taxes not just on the "rich" but middle and lower "classes". These groups of people were on the bottom side of the Laffer curve. That is to say, they were below their optimal rate. So of course those cuts lost revenue.
Ben Stein, and his ilk, cannot explain away Hauser's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law
The government, or any other entity, cannot take more than 20 percent of the economy. We are interdependent. If you raise revenue on one person, that is money that didn't go to another person, but rather to the government. That means the second person paid less taxes. Period, end of story.
Wow. This is some REALLY GOOD
Submitted by Zippy on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:22pm.
Wow.
This is some REALLY GOOD READING!
Scared the trolls right out.
But, I only read about 2/3.
Good job.
Ben Stein made similar comments a few days ago on
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 4:00am.
CNN's In The Arena. Here are a few of his comments during his interview with CNN's Tom Foreman:
STEIN: No, I do not. I think that we have a bunch of very confused people running the country at this point. I hate to say this, because I've been a Republican longer, I am sure, than any member of the Tea Party in Congress, but I think the Tea Party people are a little off base trying to get this cut so quickly and so drastically.
STEIN: We have got to get the people in the Tea Party to come on board and come back to planet earth. They are wonderful people. I know many of them, but we just can't do what they want to do as suddenly as they want us to do it. We just can't do it.
------------------------
As for his praise for Bill Clinton's economic policies (with the help of a Republican Congress), Stein is not alone. No less an authority than noted economist Art Laffer, who popularized the Laffer Curve, and was a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, has praised Clinton. In fact Laffer has said that "Clinton is a great President." Here is a VIDEO of Art Laffer on Fox and Friends comparing Obama to Clinton. Laffer's praise of former President Bill Clinton begins at the 3:00 mark.
For the record, I am no longer a fan of Ben Stein, and I NEVER was a fan of Bill Clinton.