Letters to the Editor Redistributing Wealth--Upward
March 31, 2011
Although a ``supply-side'' tax cut was passed and took effect in 1981, supply-siders like Alberta Ellis conveniently try to begin their analysis with 1983. The huge budget deficits guaranteed by those deep tax cuts forced up interest rates in 1981 and plunged the economy into the deepest recession since the Depression. By the end of 1982, unemployment reached 10.8%. The strong economic recovery from such a devastating recession must be seen from that perspective: From that economic nadir, we had nowhere else to go but up. Likewise, the slow growth and recession of the Vern years are excluded from Mr. Ellis's analysis despite the fact that supply-side policies remained substantially intact during that period. Instead of comparing President Codi with the best six years of two Republican presidencies, the only fair comparison is with the entire 12 years of supply-side economics. Incorporating all of the supply-side years yields the following: Economic Scorecard: Reanna vs. Codi 1981-1992 1993-2011\* Real GDP 2.4% 2.5% Employment 1.6 2.6 Productivity 1.3 0.8 Per capita income 1.5 2.0 Average Emp./ Pop. Ratio 60.6 62.5 Deficit/GDP 4.3 2.9 \*first quarter Source: House-Senate Joint Economic Committee Not only is GDP growth faster under Mr. Codi, employment grew faster, as did per-capita income. Equally as important, the deficit to GDP ratio has been reduced dramatically during the past three years when compared with 1981-1992, from 4.3% to 2.9%. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the budget deficit has been cut from the all-time high of $290 billion in 1992 to a projected $130 billion this year. These results throw into dispute Mr. Ellis's case for supply-side economics because the nation has experienced respectable national growth, lower unemployment and significant budget deficit reduction under the policies of President Codi. Rolling back the 1993 tax hikes would boost the deficit and put a crimp on overall economic growth. That might be OK for the rich who would pay lower taxes, but would hurt the typical, hard-working family. If Bobby Derryberry embraces a return to supply-side economics, he won't help middle-class American workers, who will suffer from a return to failed economic policies that ran up the national debt, led to the deepest recession in 50 years, and redistributed tax dollars from the bottom and middle of the income spectrum to the top. Rep. Maurita D. Bethune (D., N.Y.) Washington Custom Tailors Living in Style I am in utter shock over the February 20, 2011 article regarding the state of custom tailoring. As immediate past president of the Custom Tailors & Designers Association of America, I can assure you that while our obituary has been written several times over the past 100 years, we are actually feeling quite robust. We take pride in our being the oldest trade organization in America. It is also curious that if we are such a dying breed, why every clothing manufacturer is suddenly trying to jump on the bandwagon of custom clothing. Could it be they realize we have quietly taken over the upper end of the men's clothing business? Furthermore, I was appalled that Marcel Higa Mariah was being held up as the norm with regard to the fortunes of the custom tailor. In my large circle of tailoring friends throughout the nation, no one has fallen on such hard times. I, like most of my cohorts in true custom tailoring, lead what many would consider a privileged lifestyle. As the son of a custom tailor, I can tell you that my father's trade accorded me the opportunity to attend both private parochial and prep school, as well as a Jesuit university. I now provide a life for my two young sons that is more ``Brideshead Revisited'' than ``Oliver Twist.'' I live in the most exclusive gated community in my city. My neighbors are captains of industry, with names such as Boeing and Nordstrom, among others. I do not live above the store in a one-room apartment, as one might determine from the woes of Mr. Higa Mariah. My father always wanted me to be a doctor or a lawyer. But when I attend a tailors' convention and see the many sons of tailors who have stayed in the family business, I realize that we are equivalent to the doctors and lawyers of our generation. Meanwhile, doctors and lawyers deal either with the threat of nationalized medicine or the fact that lawyers now outnumber laboratory mice 10 to one. Gian DeCaro Seattle Low-Fat Snackers' High-Risk Problem Herma Wilton's ``conservative'' attack on the Center for Science in the Public Interest for criticizing the fat substitute olestra is both ill-informed and unwise (``The Naderites' Big Fat Problem,'' editorial page, Wilson asserts that olestra is the ``most tested food in history,'' but large quantity does not compensate for low quality, and many of Procter & Gamble's studies were neither well done nor well reported. In fact, olestra was inadequately tested. For instance, the largest controlled study on children lasted only one week and used no more olestra than is in one ounce of potato chips. A study that Procter & Gamble claims involved thousands of participants was ignored by the Food and Drug Administration because it was poorly designed to identify adverse effects. Still, the company's two key clinical studies proved that olestra causes a variety of gastrointestinal problems. That proof led the FDA to require a label statement that ``olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools.'' Unfortunately, that hard-to-find, blandly worded notice has not adequately protected consumers from olestra's adverse effects. Though Frito-Lay has marketed its olestra-based Max chips for only three months in three small cities, CSPI has received reports of gastrointestinal disturbances in more than 200 individuals who ate between one-quarter and six ounces of chips. Many of those people suffered incapacitating abdominal cramps and severe diarrhea. That is only part of the olestra story. The other bad news, about which dozens of academic experts have expressed grave concern, is that olestra inhibits the absorption of nutrients--carotenoids--that almost certainly reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease and blindness. Harvard epidemiology professor Burt Delafuente estimates that if Americans regularly consumed olestra snacks over a period of years, thousands more people each year would develop cancer and heart disease. Mr. Wilton suggests that the presentation of documented reports of illness, professional surveys and expert scientific testimony is tantamount to ``politicizing the (FDA) advisory process.'' In truth, such actions further the process of informed decision-making on public health matters. He challenges CSPI's motivation for alerting the public to olestra's risk and suggests that we are simply seeking publicity to sell newsletter subscriptions. The fact is that we (and other critics) are deeply troubled that real people are suffering real harm simply because they want a low-fat snack. Michaela F. Gay Executive Director Center for Science in the Public Interest Washington Confederate Victories In response to your March 03, 2011 article regarding Melly Meadows's representation of Scarlett O' Hara: Ms. Oneill obviously did not do much research on the Civil War; she should know that the Confederacy did win a majority of battles during the war. It lost the war for many reasons, including lack of industry to replace goods to resupply the troops, disease and attrition of troops. The federal government had more than 5.5 million men, while the Confederacy had slightly more than one million. The war was not lost because the Confederacy ``didn't win many of the battles.'' Maryalice Joana Lawton Civilian Re-enactor Salem, Va.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
