Modern liberals love to brag about the good economic times that the United States experienced in the late 1990's. But if you ask them to name a Clinton policy that led to the 90's boom, they typically fall silent.
But Senator Rand Paul appears to have figured out what many of us have known for years, that the economic boom of the late nineties would have never occurred without the policies of President Reagan Reaganthat led to the reduction in the top marginal individual income tax rate from 70.1% to 28.4%.
In an interview with Bret Baier that aired on Friday's Special Report, Paul made it clear who he felt deserved the credit for the economic booms of both the Eighties and the Clinton years.
"When Reagan ran on tax cuts and then did significantly cut tax rates you had millions of jobs created, in fact I would argue that not only the 80's but also the 90's were the result of Reagan tax cuts. I think we should do it again."
The effect of the Reagan tax cuts is debated to this day and is a particular sore spot among liberals who deride the theory of the Reagan tax policies as "Trickle Down Economics."
Even Hillary Clinton--who has ridden the boom years that occurred during her husband's presidency to a US Seante Seat and frontrunner status in the 2016 presidential race-- claims that history has shown that tax cuts don't work.
Then again the former first lady doesn't think that businesses create jobs either so she might just think that the 90's boom was brought about by a magical leprechaun with a very big pot of gold.
Of course, the modern left doesn't understand a lot of things including the fact that most new jobs in this country are created by start-ups. That's when someone opens a new business. In order to do that a middle class individual typically must take out a loan from a bank. Banks wouldn't have all that money to lend unless the wealthy were willing to invest it and put it there, which is exactly what happened when Reagan cut the top rate in the early years of his presidency.
So Rand has it right, hopefully he keeps the message going so that Americans really start to understand that the Clinton economy had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.