I don’t claim to be an economic whiz. I took only two economics courses at LSU in earning my history degree. But reading Dan Fagan’s column Dec. 31, fawning all over the recent Republican/Donald Trump tax plan, I do get to call on what I learned in obtaining my history degree. This is the third stab at trickle-down economics since 1983. The first two did not result in sustained job-creating growth. That brings up another college course: mathematics. If you work a problem and get the same answer twice, it’s pretty certain that you’ll get the same answer every time.

Trump FBI

President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd at the FBI National Academy graduation ceremony, Friday, Dec. 15, 2017, in Quantico, Va.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) 

Stephanie Grace: 2018 will be good for some, but not, all in Louisiana politics

The number that jumps out at me when I try to understand the economic policy of the federal government is 70. That’s the percentage of GDP that’s attributed to consumer spending. It seems to me that if the economic policy of the federal government is to be most effective, that’s the area that it should concentrate: middle-class spending. The top 1 percent cannot and do not reinvest their wealth back into the national economy to warrant that much coddling. This all reminds me of the children’s fairy tale, “The Goose Who Laid Golden Eggs." Middle-class Americans create 70 percent of GDP, but by giving them crumbs in the federal government economic policy, they’re starving it to death.

Alex Chapman


Ville Platte