Reality Check

   Republican candidates continue to yammer about the disastrous state of the American economy, as Sen. Ted Cruz evokes the spirit of economist Milton Friedman as his guiding light for recovery, along with less government and a "trickle-down" economic policy that will rescue a faltering recovery.
   And among other things, in his Wisconsin victory speech, Cruz called for the Internal Revenue Service to be abolished. How the government would function without any source of revenue was not mentioned.
   Donald Trump has gone even further, warning of a serious recession -- unless, of course, he is elected president, and then he can fix things. Presumably as he has fixed many of his own business ventures.
   Both complain bitterly of the economic "disaster" that the nation has suffered during the Obama Administration.
   Reality check: President Barack Obama took office with an unemployment rate of about 10 percent, a stumbling economy and continuing  job losses. The numbers tell a different story. The economy is growing, hiring has increased, and the jobless rate is below 6 percent.
   The latest report from the Federal Reserve backs this up, noting that "economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pace despite the global and financial developments of recent months." Further, the central bank said, "A range of recent indicators, including strong job gains, points to additional strengthening."
   Against this backdrop, the Fed said, it will maintain its target range for its key interest rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent, as part of its program to stimulate the economy.
   Government plays a major role in any modern economy, along with consumer spending and corporate investment. And when consumers stop spending and corporations cut back on investments, government can step in to fill the gap, thus avoiding complete disaster. One of the most obvious ways, of course, is infrastructure spending, as government upgrades, replaces and adds such things as roads, highways, bridges and other projects that provide jobs and income for consumers.
   But that's contrary to the ultra-conservative economic think-planners, who insist that a government that governs best is one that governs least. And for some, that means no government at all.
   No IRS means no income to fund government projects, including the many jobs at key government agencies.
   Trickle-down economics claims that cutting taxes for the wealthy means more disposable income for them, so their spending will provide jobs and income for others, and the benefits trickle down to the rest of us.
   Assuming, of course, that the ultra-rich do, in fact, spend all that extra money that they would otherwise have paid in taxes. But what if they don't? History has a lesson there.