Today on Stephanopolous, Jim DeMint repeated the mantra that we never spent our way out of a recession. As he said when defending his "stimulus" bill, which had nothing other than permanent tax cuts:
Long-term corporate, small business and family tax relief will work. John F. Kennedy’s 1963 tax reductions led to 9 million new private-sector jobs in five years. Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts led to 7 million in the same period.
DeMint is part of a high pyramid of historical revisionists who are in denial about Reagan’s legacy of taxation. But he’s sitting on the fat heads of conservative pundits, neocon fantasists and professional gasbags like Rush Limbaugh:
[T]ax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.
They know it’s true because the Heritage Foundation, which does their thinking for them, tells them so:
Despite the steep recession in 1982–brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s–by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth.
Let’s make an uncomfortable detour into reality with Joshua Green’s 2003 article from the Washington Monthly:
It’s conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan’s watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly–but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year’s reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike–the largest since World War II–was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn’t count as raising taxes.)
Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.
This record flummoxes the best efforts of today’s Reagan hagiographers to explain away. Peter Wallison, for instance, after proclaiming that Reagan "stayed the course against changes in his economic plan," later dismisses the president’s tax increases as "a modest rollback" that "seems to have been the result" of his accepting a Democratic promise to cut spending by twice that amount. (Whatever happened to "Trust, but verify"?)
Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history–an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan’s administration were aghast. According to Wall Street Journal reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray, whose book Showdown at Gucci Gulch chronicles the 1986 measure, "the conservative president’s support for an effort once considered the bastion of liberals carried tremendous symbolic significance." When Reagan’s conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."
Despite Peggy Noonan’s wild delusion that Reagan "said he would cut the budget, and he did," he expanded it significantly. Neither did he reduce the size of government — the number of federal workers rose 61,000 under Reagan, as opposed to Clinton who cut 373,000 jobs. The deficit tripled from the time he took office until the time he left.
I understand that Republicans are responsible for the complete and utter failure of supply side economics and the damage that the unfettered implementation of their crackpot theories has wrought, and they’re struggling to rationalize why anyone should listen to them. But their continuing need to transmogrify Ronald Reagan in order to gin up an excuse only underscores how morally impoverished, intellectually bankrupt and justifiably discredited the conservative movement is right now.
Related posts:
- Attention Bush Apologists: Reagan Greeted Fallen Americans at an Air Force Base, Idiots
- Krugman: The Public Option and Why the Reagan Zombies Don’t Die
- Doug Hoffman’s Cunning Plan to Reduce the Deficit: Cutting Earmarks, Taxes
- Memo to Jay Cost: Obama Won a Larger Percentage of the Popular Vote in 2008 than Reagan in 1980
- Obama Denies Insurance Mandate Taxes Middle Class, Diminishes Public Option





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

There was a whole lotta stupid on Stephanopolous this morning. Thanks, Jane.
Reagan raised taxes and George W. Bush was a moron.
The wingnuts won’t accept either reality, preferring instead to live in a world of ideology and self-righteousness.
President Clinton’s tax INCREASES led to 22 million jobs created during his presidency.
Transmogrify….what a wonderful word. Before I had read it, I was already thinking about the old question, “Is there an honest man to be found?” (To be really PC would have to include woman as well.) In a word, is trahsmogrify a very big, fine word for lying….seems to me that is part of the Reagan legacy as well. Stockman himself has long ago admitted that trickle down stuff was not going to work. So we have just had a very long run of very generous trickle, or gush, up; they like it that way.
Even though the facts clearly show Reagan raised taxes, I’m sure Zombie Reagan believes in his heart that he cut them.
I think that one of the problems that the Republicans have is that they’ve driven everyone with any brains out of the party. All they have any more is slogan zombies. Every politician uses slogans and cliches, but a lot of the leading Republicans have no other ideas. They believe their slogans like gospel and don’t know anything else.
You can watch it run through the system. Amity Shlaes just published something stupid about the New Deal, and you’ll hear everyone saying it now.
Unfortunately my Blue Dog Congressman believes the same cliches.
Reagan should be on Mount Rushmore — on the backside. He was an unamiable dunce, a mean oldster bitter about his aging, well into dementia long before America was told, and largely controlled by his corporate sponsors from the 1950s onward.
It’s long past time for some actual history about the Reagan presidency, something that includes his scandalous AIDS ignorance and union-busting. He rode the arrow that is now heading straight back down to smash the planet. America will not, and should not, remember him well.
Just another argument to wait awhile before we name shit after somebody.
Amity Shlaes should be in prison.
While we’re talking about the senile movie star let’s not forget that he was also a traitor who sold Hawk missiles and Tow missiles to the terrorists, and he was a racist who mainstreamed terms like “welfare queens”. He gave the first major speech of his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in the sixties.
I was heartened to hear Barney Frank break a critical silence. The biggest spending bill will end up being the 1 trillion plus we are spending in Iraq. In other words, military spending is spending. This is due to the astonishing fact that money is, like, fungible. Because you call it defense spending doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or doesn’t count. I truly hope the economic (as well as political, human, etc.) costs of our military are finally going to be put on the table…
Yeah, that reminds me– we need to rename the Reagan National Airport and the USS Ronald Reagan. It’s an outrage that these national symbols are named after a traitor.
I say good on Barney Frank but moreover,did you see Georgie Boy Stephanopolous ,try to change the subject when Barney Frank called Demint on Demint’s hypocrisy as regards to the spending in Iraq & spending on American infrastructure ?
The Philadelphia launch should never be forgotten. What pandering, crass, racism. How sad.
Digg is open! Rethuglians are totally bankrupt and should be regulated to the garbage heap of History! They keep clinging to the failed Economic theories of Milton Friedman! Which do nothing but transfere the Public wealth to the filthy Rich! “Never More”
Amen
Woohoo Jane! Great post! Absolutely right. If the neocons really understood what Ronnie Reagan did, they would be livid.
I didn’t see that, but I’d like to see someone catch Georgie Boy on a dark street and shear his hair off.
Notice that the conservatives aren’t citing Bush’s tax cuts as an example of a successful “stimulus.” It’s over a trillion dollars over 7 years and the result even during the “good years” as poor and is now catastrophic.
That link earlier, AlterNet’s The Bushies Stole Us Blind is fantastic. Should be assigned reading..
Reagan’s first tax act in 1981, ERTA, reduced government revenues by approximately 3%. The next year the second tax act, TEFRA, was passed
to raise some dough. It raied about half of what ERTA cost. Thereafter, just about every year, a new tax bill was passed incrementally raising
taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemp-Roth_Tax_Cut
Jane, Jane, Jane! When Saint Ronnie did it, it was called “revenue enhancement”.
Excellent point. I think it should be worked into every rebuttal of the GOP puke funnel that if tax cuts work so well, why do they cite Reagan and not Dubya?
Heh… Good point, PW…! ;-)
Barney had another good one; I never saw a tax cut build a bridge. A nice way to push back at the tax cuts (for the rich) solve everything dogma. The Dems and the administration really need to start pushing back much more aggressively. And yes, cite the George Bush experience. Again and again.
Amen.
I saw Knute Rockne, All-American on teevee yesterday, gotta say the Gipper was great at maudlin.
In addition to ignoring facts that don’t support their ideology, don’t assume politicians know anything about American history. Some may recall this online civics test someone post a few months back.
The following is from the quiz summary.
Ronnie is no FUCKING SAINT! HE was nothing more than a shill for Corporate America and did everything he could to destroy the working man’s right to Unionize, just like those Banks did last October taking our money and funneling it to Republicans Senators to try and stop the Employee Free Trade Bill.
Among Reagan’s many accomplishments, he gutted federal regulatory agencies. I wonder how that worked out?
I like to correct my mom’s DeeCee area friends who refer to Reagan Airport (most of them now drop the National) by saying, “Oh, you mean National Airport?”
“When I was growing up, this country didn’t even know it had a race problem.”
– Ronald Reagan
… and many of his friends shipped thousands of American jobs overseas.
He also initiated all this Union busting for the last 3 decades! Just remember how those southern Republican Senators shrieked and screamed to force the Auto Unions to accept huge pay cuts!
here’s what republicans don’t understand and “the think tanks” refuse to tell their base
whenever they’ve had a postitive result from “tax refunds” that came because it was targeted at a segment in the economy that was struggling or it was targeted at a sector we wanted to grow
for instance we can get positive return from tax relief if we give that relief to alternative fuel research and more efficient equiptment
this is not really called “lowering taxes” it is really an investment that gives us a positive return
concervatives use these positive results to make believe tax relief will therefore benefit the entire economy which of course is obsurd
Ronald Reagan was the President who greeted the only black member of his Cabinet, the HUD Secretary, at an event by saying, “Hello, Mr Mayor”
And how could anyone working back then forget the huge increase in payroll taxes that Reagan signed in 1983; I remember at the time I was making less than $200/week (and yeah, you could still live in NYC for less than $200/week, imagine) and the increase in payroll taxes was a really heavy hit. Of course it was somewhat regressive but it did ensure (so we were told) Social Security so well worth it.
Ronnie really wasn’t the President ,he was an actor hired to play President,his careers greatest role !
It’s true many white people had no idea, particularly in the rural North. There was no television, newspapers didn’t talk about it, society was segregated by law and to some extent geography. You can’t know something that exists outside your field of perception.
And Dubya was surprised to learn there were black people living in Brazil. Those wacky Republicans…
The difference between a tax-and-spend liberal and a tax-and-spend conservative? Three guesses, and “taxing” and “spending” don’t count. But I’ve always thought of Reagan as the quintessential borrow-and-spend conservative, because of the massive deficits he racked up.
I have a proposal by the way that I believe would give everyone tax relief and still get revenue for the government
if we federalzise the fed we can use “the prine” as revenue, we can raise the prime when the economy is doing great and heating up, lower the prime when we need to get money more liquid
this is win win as far as I can see and I wonder why the hell we are producing money with a negative overhead
kucinich was speaking about taking ownership of our money just teh other day
Reagan may have been a strong supporter of the military.He wasn’t much of a supporter of the service man.
One of his first acts as President was to take un-employment benefits away from separating service members.
Serve your country for Ronnie ,four years of shit pay and a boot in the ass on your way out the door!
Ronald Reagan, let us not forget, is the President who was cuckolded in the White House by Frank Sinatra.
The biggest difference between the two major parties at this point is marketing. That and the fact that when they do it doggy-style the Democrats are always in front.
You wrote in the classical manner, leaving the (excellent) punchline to last:
“But their continuing need to transmogrify Ronald Reagan in order to gin up an excuse only underscores how morally impoverished, intellectually bankrupt and justifiably discredited the conservative movement is right now.”
If you put that first, an already very strong piece of writing would have the knockout at the beginning…
Instead of helping to dispell the pure bullshit Reagan mythos, Obama helped to reinforce it (presumably because he was pandering to Republican voters). Obama said Reagan had the ideas or some such nonsense. When called to the carpet by Hillary, later Obama said he didn’t say they were good ideas.
Reagan did suck in ways that liberals can easily hate, but he also sucked for conservatives in ways that have been papered over with his deification. Reagan raised taxes, grew the government and he ran up a huge deficit. The only “good” thing he did where evil conservatives are concerned is that he took a huge bite out of labor.
New post —>
Absolutely! Under Ronnie the GI Bill became almost nothing!
Reagan didn’t support the military, he supported defense contractors. When a lot of his expensive military expenditures finally got field tested in Panama and during the first Gulf War, it turned out most of them didn’t work worth a damn. That’s okay, he was able to drive the Soviet Union into bankruptcy nearly 20 years ahead of the U.S..
Way to smack down the lying wingnut extremists Jane! These spoiled brats need to be constantly slapped hard with the truth, something the conservative media is reluctant to do.
Thank goodness for the factual and honest liberal blogs, talk show hosts, along with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow! Without all of you we would have Joe the Plumber as our next Secretary of State. (and we thought it couldn’t get any worse…)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..407/433854
As The Economist wrote after GWB was elected: (I paraphrase)
The choice is not between big government and small government, but between what form of big government. With GWB the choice is made: Military Spending and large deficits.
The Heritage Foundation is nothing more than a right wing propaganda mill. Republicans don’t need “facts” when they have the Heritage Foundation to cook the books.
New Post Upstairs
Damn, I was enjoying this. Don’t stop so soon. What about his marvelous Central America policies? Iran?
I realize this thread has probably had it, but don’t forget to publicize the new Will Bunch book about St. Ronnie, “Tear Down This Myth, How the Reagan Legacy had Distorted Our Politics…”
What they won’t tell you is starting with Kennedy, the so called tax cuts were not balanced with cuts in Federal spending, they were stimulus in addition toincreases in Federal spending. The upshot is that there were deficits, and since deficits eventually need to be paid back with interest, they are at the most tax deferrals with a tax increase for the interest payments, and if they aren’t paid back by the generation that borrowed and benefited from the money they are transfers of income from future taxpayers to the present. Income redistribution if you will. Tax increases on the future generation. Everything about them are anathema to the republicans but they do it any way. I like to call it what it really is: Theft.
We really need to quit arguing within the republican frames. They are phony, and our country and our children are the worse for them.
Actually The dot.com boom led to the creation of 22 million jobs, Which by the way went away. what is more relevent to the current crisis is the fact that Clinton’s adminastration screwed with the C.R.A. which had more of a direct effect on the mortage meltdown than ANYTHING Bush did