Little-Acorn
New member
With Sen. Barack Obama's endorsement by Teddy and Caroline Kenndy, many of his acolytes are gushing with phrases such as "This is the passing of the torch" and "Obama is the heir apparent to the legacy of John Kennedy!".
But is he?
One thing Kennedy was responsible for, though he was assassinated before it was completely enacted into law (shortly after by LBJ): He guided a major tax rate cut through Congress, cutting the top income tax rate from 91% to 75%.
Yes, the top rate was 91% when JFK became President, on incomes of $200,000/year or more. Kind of hard to imagine now. But Democrats had been in control of both houses almost continuously since the 1930s, so taxes knew no bounds, even long after WWII was over.
JFK's tax cut caused a mini-boom as unemployment and interest rates went down, average wages went up, and rich and poor alike saw increases in their incomes and prosperity. Predictably, government revenues also went up, confounding doom-and-gloom liberals who insisted that any tax rate cut would REDUCE government revenue.
It was a foreshadowing of what was to come twenty years later, when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates further from 75% to 50%, and then to 33%. An even bigger boom resulted, with comparable increases ingovernment revenues that almost kept up with exploding Congressional spending. The Reagan prosperity boom was ridden by subsequent Presidents for the next 20-plus years.
If elected, will Barack Obama be another JFK in such important matters? Will he cut taxes as JFK did?
Unfortunately, Obama's record indicates otherwise. He has never endorsed any tax cut, but has voted in favor of nearly every tax increase to come down the pike.
It must be heady and inspiring to be compared to the Democrat party's most-loved icon (aside from FDR). But it looks like such a comparison my be VERY inappropriate, when compared with Obama's actual record.
Why do I get the feeling Obama will need to be told by someone:
"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
But is he?
One thing Kennedy was responsible for, though he was assassinated before it was completely enacted into law (shortly after by LBJ): He guided a major tax rate cut through Congress, cutting the top income tax rate from 91% to 75%.
Yes, the top rate was 91% when JFK became President, on incomes of $200,000/year or more. Kind of hard to imagine now. But Democrats had been in control of both houses almost continuously since the 1930s, so taxes knew no bounds, even long after WWII was over.
JFK's tax cut caused a mini-boom as unemployment and interest rates went down, average wages went up, and rich and poor alike saw increases in their incomes and prosperity. Predictably, government revenues also went up, confounding doom-and-gloom liberals who insisted that any tax rate cut would REDUCE government revenue.
It was a foreshadowing of what was to come twenty years later, when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates further from 75% to 50%, and then to 33%. An even bigger boom resulted, with comparable increases ingovernment revenues that almost kept up with exploding Congressional spending. The Reagan prosperity boom was ridden by subsequent Presidents for the next 20-plus years.
If elected, will Barack Obama be another JFK in such important matters? Will he cut taxes as JFK did?
Unfortunately, Obama's record indicates otherwise. He has never endorsed any tax cut, but has voted in favor of nearly every tax increase to come down the pike.
It must be heady and inspiring to be compared to the Democrat party's most-loved icon (aside from FDR). But it looks like such a comparison my be VERY inappropriate, when compared with Obama's actual record.
Why do I get the feeling Obama will need to be told by someone:
"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
