European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - November 8, 1987, Darmstadt, Hesse Page 10 the stars and stripes sunday. November 8. 1987 columns Martin Gottlieb Market dive tolls death of Supply Side economics the Stock Market crash has re energized the debate Over economic policy. Some arc saying thai Supply Side a known As reaganomics is thoroughly discredited. Others arc saying that such critics arc myopic soils ports who have never been Able Sec the Good things about the i98us Economy but Sec the bad things As bigger than they arc. The truth docs not lie someplace in Between. The truth is that Supply Side economics is discredited. In fact in was discredited before the crash. In arguing Tor the perpetuation of their approach the Supply Sicre make four Basic Points 1 the Economy has performed exceptionally Well in the Reagan years. This is simply not True. If there is a Bottom line economic statistic in is the Gross National product the statistician s Effort to cover everything. The Gnu in the Reagan years has grown by an after inflation average of about 2.7 percent Peryear. This is a Sharp slowdown. In the previous 10 years the real Gnu had grown 38 percent. And in the decade before that 46 percent. President Reagan likes to talk about the re cent growth in the number of jobs. But that growth has been slower under him than under his predecessor whose term saw 13 million jobs added id the american Economy is always adding jobs. Adding those jobs while reducing inflation is a real accomplishment but who believes ii was Supply Side fiscal policy rather than monetary policy and the collapse of open that reduced inflation 2 As a result of the passage of the 1981 lax cuts Federal revenues have increased dramatically in the 19sos. This is simply Noi True. In fiscal 1987 which just ended total Federal reve Nues were indeed up 43 percent from 1981. Bui about25 percent of thai is inflation. Of the real growth most has been in social Security revenues and that growth has. Of course come because of social a county tax increases not because of tax cuts. Aslo general revenues the real growth has been about 1 percent per year since 1981. That is awful by historical standards. In the 1960s the figure was More like 8 percent per year. 3 recent lax increases notably in 1982 and 1984 have failed to reduce the deficits. This is almost certainly not Rue. Before the 19b2 increase went into effect the deficit James Kilpatrick had been burgeoning Ever since the passage of the Kemp Roth act. Ii stopped burgeoning. No it did not fall but after All Kemp Roth took effect Over 3 years. So we were raising some lanes and culling others Al the same Lime. Lately the deficit has been shrinking As a percent age of the Gnu and the Federal budget. It s not easy to make a Case that those tax increases did l help. 4 tas increases frighten markets and Hurt the Economy. This is not necessarily True. In fact the Greal Bull Mark of 1982-1987 an the Long economic recovery began Only after the 982 a increase was passed. The Slock Market which was not doing Well before Kemp Roth was passed actually went Down after its passage in late i98l it would be silly to suggest thai the markets love la increases and Hale lax cuts. But apparently the markets Don t always and necessarily Hale Allta increases and love All lax Cut. Even if policy makers Stan from the Assumption that the 1980s have been fantastic economically they still must confront the possibility that the current Suc Cess has been achieved Al the expense of future Success that is by running up a deficit thai Ronald Reagan May not have to worry about but somebody Wilt. What the crash did was to drive Home that Point about Supply Side economics like a Hammer driving a Nail into a coffin. To Cox news sol Etc medical leave act would violate Constitution until a few Days ago in had seemed pointless to comment on the pending parental and medical leave act of 1987" pointless because in seemed unbelievable Hal so bad a Bill would Ever draw serious attention. But on oct. 29 a subcommittee of the Senate labor committee held a hearing on the Bill and now we hear that under the Rubric of pro family the measure will be reported to the floor. Sponsored by Connecticut s sen. Christopher Dodd. Itie Bill May be pro family but it is Anli everything Ella. It is Ami labor anti management anti collective bargaining and anti federalism. It violates the 10th amendment of the Constitution and perhaps the ill amendment As Well. Because the Bill s sweeping embrace does not exempt religious organizations it May violate the first amendment also. Podd s Bill is a manifestation of the big brother philosophy gone berserk ii would apply to allem players of at least 15 employees. The Bill would compel these employers on request to Grant an employee 18 weeks of unpaid leave Over a iwo year period on the birth or adoption of a child. In the cd Cal of a serious illness the Bill would mandate 26 weeks of unpaid leave Over a 12-Monih period. Yes it is All very compassionate. The picture of daddy staying Home with Momic for two or three months nurturing the Newborn child is 8 picture to moisten the hardest Eye. The weeks following child bin h often Are weeks of severe readjustment within a family. Who could oppose togetherness when such togetherness is mandated by fed eral Law. Every thoughtful observer should oppo Seil. Stephen j. Mark Man assistant attorney general for he office of Legal policy has spelled out the objections with clarity and Force. His recent to Coli Mony before the subcommittee demolishes any Case thai might be mounted in the Bill s support. For starters questions of annual leave whether paid or unpaid arc questions Hal historically have been resolved by collective bargaining or by an employer s decision. The Resolution of fringe benefits depends upon All kinds of things. Some employees might find parental leave desirable others might prefer a Benefit package that included dental care or paid vacation time instead. Under this Bill allem players would be compelled to provide parental leave whether their employees wanted it or not. In his testimony Markman noted the differing nature of work Fortes. In one business most of the employees May be older persons in another the workers May be mostly Young or Middle aged. The sums that an employer May set aside for fringe benefits Are limited. Workers themselves Are in the Best position to know what they want. If the Federal government forces a particular Benefit on deprives hem of economic opportunities Hal in Many cases they would value More highly the Bill is unfair nol Only to workers but also to their employers. In Many Small industries the pro longed absence of a key employee would impose a serious hardship. The Prospect of losing such a key figure for weeks on end almost certainly would re sult in Subtle discrimination against hiring such risks in the first place. Younger women especially would be Wen As potential liabilities. Federal Law forbids discrimination on account of sex but such charges Are not easily proved. Under the Lola amendment Public policies on health safety and welfare historically have been regarded As areas in which the Stales and the private sector must be free to Experiment. Dodd i Bill would trample upon this tradition. An attempt to the Law on parental leave said Markman is symptomatic of the persistent tendency of government officials in Washington Well meaning officials to act As if Only we can fully understand and remedy the problems confronting 24u million americans it is this attitude Markman added that in recent decades has been responsible for the Mush Rooming growth of a National government Hal no Only has undertaken unmanageable responsibilities but also has usurped the decision making authority of private citizens and of the Levels of government closest to those citizens the slates and their local this is sound doctrine. Because the Dodd Bill would impose ils provisions on stale and incl government workers the measure seriously would in Trude upon stale prerogatives. And became the Bill leaves open the Prospect of requiring nol unpaid leave but rather paid leave it raises monumental questions of Cost. This ugly legislative baby ought to be decently aborted before it Coos and gurgles it Way to enactment. The of Wuu Imp firm minol or try a h my 1h a i tit to sur in column vat columns on Taftt us and m a May a m
