Hamilton’s Blessing Analysis

...

In more depth, Gordon advocates for the monitoring of federal spending. He advocates this because at this point the debt seems to be spiraling out of control. No one can seem to get a handle on it at this point in time. Congress is too busy taking advantage of earmarks. Since every congressman and woman want to bring the pride back to their home state, they are hiring contractors to build things and put the congressman’s name on it. According to Gordon , in 2008, “there were over eleven thousand earmarks that appropriated a total of more than 17 billion”.[6]. Gordon finds this as a waste of time and resources. Instead of focusing on their personal gains once again they should be focused on the nation as a whole and look toward their best interests. Throughout the early 1960’s Gordon almost gives a sense of pity to these congressman,

explaining they are dealing with a whole new beast. This beast is the economy which has drastically changed and become so intricate over the past 190 years. He further retracts this pity and is angered by the lack of control. Gordon describes backdoor spending as considerably the largest destabilizing effect on our budget. Also the Budget Control Act that was passed into law, left little ability for the congress or the President to stop the instinctive desire for congress to spend money. Followed by this act was the “Star Wars” project which increased federal spending immensely. Gordon seems to lean toward the idea of having a board to monitor this deficit spending. Throughout “Hamilton’s Blessing” Gordon explains the country has gone through periods of debt increasing, decreasing, and remaining stable. Throughout our history debt has had periods of increasing debt seven times. This is more than we have had decreasing debt which was six times. This shows Gordons true concern for a monitoring board for the nations uncontrollable spending prominently after 1960.

All things considered, throughout “Hamilton’s Blessing” some viewpoints are construed to prove Gordons points. One point that stands out is his view on politicians, he simply blames politician’s shortcomings on the recent debt incurred today. Although politicians do play a role in our economy, they cannot be single handedly responsible for persistent deficits. Also Gordons idea that debt can be benefit the economy if utilized properly seems to be stretched a little as the book develops. By the time Gordon get to a much more complex economy over a hundred years later, Roosevelt’s policies and Mellon’s supply side economics seem to lessen the distinction of Gordons point. Gordon seems to be reaching very far to make some connections during this point in the book. Throughout points of the book, some areas do not have enough factual support. One example is when Gordon lacks to explain why within the early works of income tax were aimed at targeting the rich. This conclusion doesn’t really have any supporting evidence throughout the book. As the reader you must draw your own relationship between the fact the poor were drowning in tariffs and monetary policy and why early aspects of income taxes targeted the more affluent. Another point that is misconstrued and not back up thoroughly is Gordons avocations of a flat tax. Gordon lacks information and systematic thought trying to link together his flat tax that returns can be mailed on a postcard to next referring to deductions for business expenditures. Throughout this book Gordon is biased in the fact he is determined to prove himself and Hamilton’s theory true.

Bibliography

Buchanan, James, and Richard Wagner. Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Throughout Buchanan’s and Wagner’s book you get a great understanding of Keynesian economics. Also known as macroeconomics the authors give you an in depth look of what it is and how it has shaped America today. They go into great detail about how Keynesian economics impacted the democratic party as well. This source was most useful with the understanding of Keynesian economics and also supported similar ideas by other authors as well. The credibility of this book is excellent although it gets political, the authors tend to remain neutral and are more concerned about facts rather than opinion. The one drawback to this book is that it is not an easy read. Very complex ideas and examples are given throughout the book, but overall once these concepts are understood, you get a very good understanding of macroeconomics and its effect on our country.

Gordon, John: Hamilton’s Blessing. New York: Walker Publishing Company Inc.1997

Throughout “Hamilton’s Blessing” many interesting viewpoints are brought up. The idea of capitalizing off of debt was a revolutionary idea. Gordon goes on to support Hamilton’s concept in a few ways. Gordon does this through a favored flat tax system, the removal of Political Action Committees, and a board appointed to manage federal spending. This book would have been more effective if it focused on simply these three things Gordon wanted to prove. If these points were the only things focused on, the book would’ve been much more effective. Gordon relies on credible sources for information but seems to stretch connections between sources which skew the accuracy of the information toward his points. Overall this book is an easy read once you truly understand Gordons underlying political and economic views of American history.

---------------------------------------------------------------