Supply Side Economics

Sometimes, called Trickle Down Economics, the theory was that if we put more money into the hands of those who supply the world with goods and services and jobs, the prosperity would spread to everyone at all strata of the economy.

Now we have the figures. The economy has grown. In other words, the GDP has grown, which is a measure of how many goods and services the economy has created.

And how has that enlarged economy been shaped? The growth -- the bulk of the economy's gains -- has gone to the people at the top, while everyone else has the same (income and wealth) as before or less, sometimes a lot less. More people are underemployed working in menial jobs. Standards of living have gone down for many, while wealth for the very top strata have multiplied by many times.

These facts prove it is a deeply flawed model.

And now, many of those proponents claim that disparity in income and wealth is not a problem. But doesn't that depend on the viewpoint of whomever you ask? If it's not a problem, then what, exactly, were they predicting would happen with Supply Side Economics? They claimed everyone would prosper. But that has, in fact, not happened. Something quite the opposite has happened. Are they for shared prosperity, or are they not? The observed fact is something else.

Will Betsy DeVos be Secretary for Education?

Betsy DeVos bought the position. She said so. Why did the senators who questioned her not ask her about her direct statement? Don't the people deserve to hear exactly what DeVos has intended to do? I think the senators were too kind to her.

In a New Yorker piece from November 23, 2016, she is quoted:

“I have decided to stop taking offense,” she wrote, “at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment.”

She wants religious education to have more influence, and of course, specifically Christian religious education. She wants public money paying for that. She has used her money to achieve this and intends this position is part of her plan. She wants to turn education back to before the formation of this country, to ultimately allow control of the nation by the clergy of specific churches.

I can't think of how this appointment can be stopped, but I deeply hope it is anyway.