We are not living in 1981. Feldstein's warnings then were correct. Recently the Washington Center for Equitable Growth presented a study (see A Tale of Two Countries) on income distribution since 1980: the top one percent has tripled its average income per adult to $1.3 trillion, while the lower-earning 50% has increased its annual income by 1%, to $16,200. The gap between them was 27 in 1980, now the gap is 3 times bigger, at 81 times. The benefits of growth were divided in three parts: a third to percentiles 50 to 90, a third to 90 to 99, and a third to the top one percent (this is roughly correct). The CBO offers similar studies (Trends in the Distribution of Household Income 1979 to 2008) showing unequal growth pattern. "Average real household market income for the highest income group nearly tripled over that period, whereas market income increased by about 19 percent for a household at the midpoint of the income distribution." Offering a gigantic tax break to the wealthiest, and a minor sop (soporific) to the lowest earners, does nothing to the economy except increase the consumption of the richest which trickles down a little to the poorest. As for investment, let's see the evidence that that happens. I suspect investment flows to Mexico and China and others, not to build factories in the U.S. hiring workers at $39 an hour, as they used to be paid. Olivier Giovannoni, at Univ. of Texas Inequality Project, and others, show that income share of the lower earning 90% has dropped by 15% of national income (from 55% to 37%). Who will buy the new products produced? Is this really a way (or the best way) to grow prosperity? Don't mention the deficits or enlarged national debt.