Facts: Ronald Reagan didn't cut federal spending or, in the end, taxes. Tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan and Bush didn't create economic prosperity. The only meaningful budget discipline and federal government reduction came from a Democratic administration (Bill Clinton). George W. Bush exploded deficits, which Dick Cheney said didn't matter. Reagan's budget adviser, David Stockman, says current Republican Party messaging on the need for still more tax cuts for the wealthy is rank demagoguery. Says Stockman:
“If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say it, should be ashamed of themselves.”
Breathes a single Republican in public office today who's such a truth teller? You know the answer. You may now return to the regular scheduled messages from Republicans that they've delivered only smaller government and greater prosperity; that budget deficits are the country's main concern, and that black man in the White House is a Muslim, African, socialist spendthrift.
By Ernest Dumas
Americans are losing their grip on reality because it’s become too hard to distinguish between propaganda and fact and between fable and history.
That is true because one of the two great political parties has a single unified theory about what has happened to the country the past three decades and is happening now, and that story is propelled by every officeholder, candidate or party leader and amplified by the biggest media, headed by the Murdoch empire. That, as you know, is the Republican Party.
The Democratic message is weak and fractured, the lone audible voice being that of President Obama, who was deeply unpopular across a huge swath of the country because of his race and heritage and now has lost credibility with much of the rest of the country because he said he would get us out of the economic mess the Bush administration created and he hasn’t.
Here is the official Republican worldview, shared by a sizable part of the electorate: Ronald Reagan brought a revolution in U.S. politics and government. He took a meat axe to government and cut it down to size, slashed taxes and spending and instantly created a robust economy. Democrats returned to power and reversed all those trends, and now they’re trying to undo it all again after the superb Republican hiatus of the last decade. They are engorging government, running up mammoth deficits, raising taxes and driving the moribund economy into the ground.
Little of that has much to do with reality, but in times past there was an occasional Republican truth-teller who shattered the propaganda and dispelled the myths. If he was strategically placed, he could make a big difference. Today, there’s not one.
If you’re middle-aged, you remember David Stockman. He was the cerebral conservative congressman and supply-side economist who became Reagan’s budget director and brain trust. He spearheaded the effort in 1981 that slightly reduced domestic budget growth and cut income taxes, mainly for the rich.
That winter he gave a series of interviews to William Greider, who published a mammoth article in The Atlantic Monthly, then headed by the legendary editor William Whitworth of Little Rock. The article, titled “The Education of David Stockman,” was a bombshell. Stockman said the big tax act, which cut nearly everyone’s taxes a little bit, was a Trojan horse to get what they really wanted, much lower taxes on the very rich. The popular theory, which they called “supply-side economics,” was that if you cut the taxes of job creators, the economy would take off and create millions of jobs, the government would take in more money, not less, and the budget would be quickly balanced.
In The Atlantic interview, however, Stockman revealed that he, the president and his advisers had no clue about what they were doing.
“None of us really knows what’s going on with all these numbers,” he said famously. He had thought Reagan would really cut spending, but he actually increased it sizably with ballooning military expenditures. Far from eliminating deficits, the tax cuts instantly tripled them. Stockman said it was clear that the country faced horrendous deficits “as far as the eye could see.”
The Reagan administration reacted by calling the article a fraud and claiming Stockman had been misquoted. No, Stockman said, the article truthfully recorded what he had said. Reagan summoned Stockman to the Oval Office for what was called a woodshedding. Stockman later said Reagan actually was sympathetic.
And, to Reagan’s credit, he set about to try to set things right. In the next six years he raised taxes far more than any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II (Reagan called them “revenue enhancements,” not taxes) and the deficits began to recede slightly in his final years.
As for shrinking government, that had to wait for Democrats, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who actually reversed the trend of Reagan and Bush I by slimming the federal government by 365,000 employees, running four years of budget surpluses and creating 22 million jobs.
George W. Bush had his truth teller, too. His treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, a conservative industrialist and chairman of the Rand Corp., was fired when he did not tell the president and vice president what they wanted to hear—that their tax cuts for the rich and corporations would keep the budget balanced and ignite the economy and that the invasion of Iraq was necessary and wise.
O’Neill predicted the budget surplus they inherited from the Democrats would turn into deficits exceeding $500 billion a year (Bush’s last budget deficit actually exceeded $1.4 trillion). Worse, in his memoir with Ron Suskind, he painted a picture of a president who paid little attention to the policies of government, demonstrated little curiosity and took his guidance from Vice President Cheney. When Cheney insisted in a cabinet meeting that rich people’s taxes needed to be cut even more than in the 2001 act, Bush said he thought they had taken care of their rich friends in 2001 and, besides, shouldn’t they be worried about the rising deficit? “Deficits don’t matter,” Cheney replied.
Amid all the propaganda, people did get a small dose of reality.
No more, unless you count the faint but still oracular voice of the aging boy wonder, David Stockman.
The Republican insistence that Congress extend the Bush tax cuts on high incomes and their declarations about abolishing the deficit by cutting government spending, he said recently, is “rank demagoguery.”
“If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say it, should be ashamed of themselves.”
It would be refreshing, and hopeful, if even one of the Republican presidential candidates, one member of Congress or one candidate for any office would be so honest. Just one.
Showing 1-18 of 18
A slght clarification Max... it was a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress (Gingrich/Dole) that produced meaningful budget discipline. And even their "surplus" only came about by lumping Social Security intake into general revenues.
At that time, while both parties were vocal about their social stands, both sides were also pragmatic enough to work together over fiscal matters. Not like today, where the far ends of both parties are howling to not compromise.
Tax cuts are not about the country's financials. Tax cuts are about the wealthy using the government they control to make themselves wealthier.
Many would be happy to see the country in flames and a foreign flag flying in DC if it meant their effective tax rate was zero.
Yes, ideology trumps all. And instead of tithing, their promise to Grover is held sacrosanct. Why they've made a pledge to the Amercan people and they can't go back on it (even if doing so would help immeasurably those same people they claimed to have pledged to. They are pledged to their own self interest and what gets them through the next election.
About 32 percent of people surveyed by America's Research Group said they finished a majority of their Christmas shopping in November. So much for Black Friday! Margins be gone! Twas a Cash for Clunkers type event.
David Stockman, at the end of the day, was a good man. He came in with a meataxe and went out as an older but wiser man about the role of government.
His "Triumph of Politics" should be required reading in schools.
"Americans are losing their grip on reality"
Great opening. This is where depressions come from and then both sides have to come back to life's harsh realities.
American politics has jumped the shark. Politics as entertainment is about to run it's course. Sad to see the Golden Goose cooked. But as Walter would say, "..........
There was a time (100 years ago) when Republicans spoke a different language.
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/s…
Hope that link works.
Good point. They should create a Pledge of Allegiance to Grover and make it clear their loyalties to him supersede their oath to uphold the constitution and promote the general welfare.
In many countries, if any elected official were to formally declare that he will not uphold the constitution but instead pledge his highest loyalty to an individual who has as his goal the bankruptcy and financial destruction of said country, it would be called treason.
It was Clinton's first term and it was a Democratic Congress that raised the tax rates on the wealthiest from 31% to almost 40%. It helped that some middle class didn't get moved to 40% but were at 36%. I think that would be a significant deficit reducer although it probably hurt the Democratic party politically.
Look how the rates changed here. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/…
And go back to the 1950's, 60's, and 70's and notice what the income tax rates were.
Reagan certainly cut domestic spending. He increased military spending which was a cornerstone to bringing down the wall and Democracy in Eastern Europe. Clinton cut military spending drastically after the H.W. Bush military cuts, but increased domestic spending. We ended up with a military that can't sustain a war in Afganistan. There are more civilian contractors in Afghanistan than there are troops.
The Clinton budget surplus did not translate to debt reduction. The National Debt increased during both terms of his Presidency.
BF, I would think in the 10 (ten) years we have been in Afganhistan we could have made the military as big as anyone wanted it to be. The problem in that war is that you don't win a non-conventional war with a conventional army and when there is no central government then, or now, what you are really fighting is a group of city-state fifedoms who may switch allegiances on a dime. If you want a big military then RAISE taxes to pay for it but that was Bush's stupidity-you don't start to add 50% to the outlay by calling it "off budget" and expect that you really aren't going to pay the bills (or maybe he did think that). There is no damn reason that we should spend more on the military than all of the rest of the countries in the world.
>>I'm reading history...
...
Reagan certainly cut domestic spending. He increased military spending which was a cornerstone to bringing down the wall and Democracy in Eastern Europe. <<
We would sure like to know what history you're reading. Reagan wasted billions on useless defense initiatives and defense craft. Government was LARGER when he left office than when he entered office. He raised taxes 11 times. He set record deficits with his tax cutting of upper income payers.
The Soviets could no longer afford to operate internally as they had. Crop production was off and hungry people are not happy.
I was a tax accountant when Reagan took office. He raised the taxes on my wife and me
For the wealthy, whose tax returns I helped prepare, many ended up paying a lower rate than we did on our middle income. He was the "Loophole President" around our office.
.
"What we learned under Reagan is that deficits don't matter."
--VP Dick Cheney to Sec of Treasury Paul O'Neill,
2003
Bluefriction need to look up apocryphal in the dictionary as most(99%) CCCRRR's do.
Inline with the topic, here's an opinion piece by Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, he made enough to retire at age 40. It is a much different take on the U.S. and Euro Zone financial crises and situations. Why they happened and why there is great danger of them occurring again. I've posted it once before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/opinion/…
BF, right now I am sipping a glass of 10 year old Laphroaig Scotch from the green Isle of Islay. It's wonderfully aromatic and smooth and perfect for this chilly Tuesday evening.
To quote from the website: Laphroaig 10 Year Old is an all-malt Scotch Whisky from the remote island of Islay in the Western Isles of Scotland. Laphroaig, pronounced "La-froyg", is a Gaelic word meaning "the beautiful hollow by the broad bay".
In making Laphroaig, malted barley is dried over a peat fire. The smoke from this peat, found only on Islay, gives Laphroaig its particularly rich flavour.
Laphroaig is best savoured neat, or with a little cool water. Roll it around on your tongue. Release the pungent, earthy aroma of blue peat smoke, the sweet nuttiness of the barley, the delicate heathery perfume of Islay's streams. It is as unique as the island itself.
If your question was rhetorical, then I am drinking the mighty elixir of truth and selfless compassion for one's fellow man.
Proves the adage that nothing is free, nothing is simple.
This whole mess stinks.
I couldn't agree more! But the flavor I love the most is Death by Chocolate!…
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings