JohnEngelman
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2022
- Posts
- 3,976
In The "Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed" David A. Stockman sings like a canary to expose the squalid scam of supply side economics. He names names and lists dates. As the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985 his is an insider’s view of an appalling crime against the U.S. economy.
In 1980 white voters were beguiled by a slick con man with smooth talk about easy money. Ronald “Dutch” Reagan told them that tax cuts for them would generate so much economic growth that they would get better jobs and big raises. The only people who might not benefit Dutch admitted with a sly wink, might be “the colored element.”
When Stockman joined the Reagan administration in 1981 he was a libertarian ideologue. He had no use for the religious right, which had made Reagan’s election victory possible. He really believed, despite abundant evidence from American economic history, that if we cut taxes and government spending the U.S. economy would grow so much that nearly everyone would benefit. Fortunately, unlike most who shared this delusion, Stockman had the perception and the integrity to admit his mistake.
Unlike most of those who voted for Reagan in 1980 Stockman knew that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending and balance the budget without making major cuts in popular domestic spending programs. These would have included Social Security, Medicare, military pensions, and farm and business subsidies. Stockman thought Reagan would use his popularity to force these cuts.
Stockman found instead that Reagan not only refused to make the cuts, he did not think they were necessary. Reagan really believed in the black magic of voodoo economics. He though tax cuts would generate so much economic growth that they would pay for themselves, and balance the budget. Stockman knew better, but Reagan’s other advisers either agreed with Reagan or pretended they did.
Stockman continued to patiently present Reagan with the financial numbers, but to no avail. One after another, Republican Senators and Representatives visited Stockman in his office, and said in so many words, “I’m all behind the President you understand, but don’t cut Program X. A lot of fine people benefit from Program X.” In other words: don’t cut a program that benefits my constituents. They will stop voting for me.
No one should have been surprised by this. No reasonable observer of the Reagan administration was. No reputable economist thought it was a good idea to cut taxes while raising defense spending. During the Second World War the top tax rate rose from 80 percent in 1940 to 94 percent in 1944. As it rose, the unemployment rate declined from 14.6 percent to 1.2 percent. Per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars rose from $7,423 to $12,389.
I mentioned “1996 dollars.” One of the revelations of The Triumph of Politics is that Ronald Reagan could not understand the difference between current dollars and constant dollars. He could not understand complex ideas unless they were simplified to the level of "Readers' Digest" anecdotes. The Ronald Reagan described in this book is not the bold frontiersman who faced down the Russians, won the Cold War, and restored the economy. He is an amiable duffer who refused to understand anything he did not want to believe.
The only people who really benefit from libertarian economic policies are those who have reason to be confident in their ability to earn a good income with no help from the government. David Stockman was in this category. After he left the Reagan administration in disgust he had an easy time getting a better paying job on Wall Street.
Most registered Republicans are not in this category. Most of those know it. They want the government to help them get through life. That is why the Reagan revolution failed. It is why no one should have expected it to succeed. The national debt nearly tripled under Reagan. The standard of living for most white blue collar Republicans stagnated or declined.
Nevertheless, rank and file Republicans continue to revere the memory of Ronald Reagan. One of the marks of a successful con is that the victims are too ashamed of their gullibility and complicity to draw attention to the crime.
In 1980 white voters were beguiled by a slick con man with smooth talk about easy money. Ronald “Dutch” Reagan told them that tax cuts for them would generate so much economic growth that they would get better jobs and big raises. The only people who might not benefit Dutch admitted with a sly wink, might be “the colored element.”
When Stockman joined the Reagan administration in 1981 he was a libertarian ideologue. He had no use for the religious right, which had made Reagan’s election victory possible. He really believed, despite abundant evidence from American economic history, that if we cut taxes and government spending the U.S. economy would grow so much that nearly everyone would benefit. Fortunately, unlike most who shared this delusion, Stockman had the perception and the integrity to admit his mistake.
Unlike most of those who voted for Reagan in 1980 Stockman knew that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending and balance the budget without making major cuts in popular domestic spending programs. These would have included Social Security, Medicare, military pensions, and farm and business subsidies. Stockman thought Reagan would use his popularity to force these cuts.
Stockman found instead that Reagan not only refused to make the cuts, he did not think they were necessary. Reagan really believed in the black magic of voodoo economics. He though tax cuts would generate so much economic growth that they would pay for themselves, and balance the budget. Stockman knew better, but Reagan’s other advisers either agreed with Reagan or pretended they did.
Stockman continued to patiently present Reagan with the financial numbers, but to no avail. One after another, Republican Senators and Representatives visited Stockman in his office, and said in so many words, “I’m all behind the President you understand, but don’t cut Program X. A lot of fine people benefit from Program X.” In other words: don’t cut a program that benefits my constituents. They will stop voting for me.
No one should have been surprised by this. No reasonable observer of the Reagan administration was. No reputable economist thought it was a good idea to cut taxes while raising defense spending. During the Second World War the top tax rate rose from 80 percent in 1940 to 94 percent in 1944. As it rose, the unemployment rate declined from 14.6 percent to 1.2 percent. Per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars rose from $7,423 to $12,389.
I mentioned “1996 dollars.” One of the revelations of The Triumph of Politics is that Ronald Reagan could not understand the difference between current dollars and constant dollars. He could not understand complex ideas unless they were simplified to the level of "Readers' Digest" anecdotes. The Ronald Reagan described in this book is not the bold frontiersman who faced down the Russians, won the Cold War, and restored the economy. He is an amiable duffer who refused to understand anything he did not want to believe.
The only people who really benefit from libertarian economic policies are those who have reason to be confident in their ability to earn a good income with no help from the government. David Stockman was in this category. After he left the Reagan administration in disgust he had an easy time getting a better paying job on Wall Street.
Most registered Republicans are not in this category. Most of those know it. They want the government to help them get through life. That is why the Reagan revolution failed. It is why no one should have expected it to succeed. The national debt nearly tripled under Reagan. The standard of living for most white blue collar Republicans stagnated or declined.
Nevertheless, rank and file Republicans continue to revere the memory of Ronald Reagan. One of the marks of a successful con is that the victims are too ashamed of their gullibility and complicity to draw attention to the crime.
