“Trickle down from the stock market and artificially low interest rates are the only drivers of the economy,” writes Ed Rogers at the Washington Post.
Obviously, an economic crash would be terrible, but so would a slowing down of the conveyor belt of money between Washington and Wall Street, which is fueling what little growth we have.
This puts Democrats in an odd position; right now the only thing worse than trickle-down economics is no trickle-down economics.
Democrats, of course, are supposed to hate “trickle-down economics.” President Obama says things like: “I ran for President to restore that basic bargain … that our economy works best not from the top-down, but from the middle-out.” The Democrats’ budget proclaims “The Senate Budget takes the position that trickle-down economics has failed as an economic policy. …”
So why, under Obama, do we get — at best — trickle-down economics? Why are corporate profits at record highs while median wages, unemployment, and new business formation stagnate?
Presidents, of course, don’t control the economy, but when the economy redistributes wealth upward, and Democrats hope for it to trickle down, it’s worth considering the President’s policies that act through trickle-down mechanism.
Obama wants export subsidies to create jobs — through taxpayer loan-guarantees to major exporters, who in turn might hire more workers. Green-energy subsidies are sold on the same promise. Obama bails out auto companies in the name of the worker. Meanwhile, he lets the payroll tax cut expire.
Maybe if you create trickle-down policies, you get — at best — a trickle-down economy.