I know that my family isn’t the only one to have used the expression “the proof is in the pudding” as a way of saying “you’ll know best what’s good to do when you do it and it turns out good”. Aspy that I am, I embraced that idea wholeheartedly … perhaps even letting it get to third base. Proof. Proof delights me.
That’s why I am delighted that report that the liberal ideology of taxing the rich and using the money for the social good and raising minimum wages in order to build a strong economy and thus reduce poverty has a big ol’ pudding in Minnesota:
“When he took office in January of 2011, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton inherited a $6.2 billion budget deficit and a 7 percent unemployment rate … During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly — a tax increase of $2.1 billion. He’s also agreed to raise Minnesota’s minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018, and passed a state law guaranteeing equal pay for women. Republicans like state representative Mark Uglem warned against Gov. Dayton’s tax increases, saying, “The job creators, the big corporations, the small corporations, they will leave. It’s all dollars and sense to them.” … [However] Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota’s economy — Even though Minnesota’s top income tax rate is the 4th-highest in the country, it has the 5th-lowest unemployment rate in the country at 3.6 percent … Minnesota’s private sector job growth exceeded pre-recession levels, and the state’s economy was the 5th fastest-growing in the United States … As of January 2015, Minnesota has a $1 billion budget surplus, and Gov. Dayton has pledged to reinvest more than one third of that money into public schools. And according to Gallup, Minnesota’s economic confidence is higher than any other state”
In a nutshell, people who live under governments who tax the rich and demand a higher minimum wage have a stronger economy than places still practicing “trickle-down” economics. It was true in the past and it is true today. “In truth, a top marginal rate of 70% was the lowest we ever had from 1936 to 1981, a period of time when the United States enjoyed strong and sustained economic growth, so much so that it’s referred to as the “long boom.” The strongest economic growth we’ve seen since then occurred in the 1990s—under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who did raise the top marginal rate, albeit not to pre-Reagan levels.”
How much pudding must be served before everyone can see the logical choice for either the GOP or Democrats (Roosevelt or Eisenhower, if you will) is to keep the middle class thriving by taxing those who have the most money? Why is the proof ignored?