Midnight in the Garden of Reaganomics

As the likelihood of an Obama and Democratic landslide moves from possibility to inevitability and as more and more Republicans jump on the Obama bandwagon, wailing Republicans are sounding off as if this were a sign of Armageddon. One Forbes columnist even questioned whether an Obama victory would result in the end of capitalism itself - as if the Republicans have been great stewards of the economy or Democrats have never held power before.

Coupled with comments by Governor Palin, Representative Bachmann and others dividing the country into "real Americans" (i.e., Republicans) and "American haters" (i.e., Democrats), this fear-mongering may only further prove how out of touch the Republican Party has become with mainstream Americans (or even history itself) as the electorate is becoming increasingly aware of how disastrous Republican policies have been over the past three decades.

Since 1980, the Republicans had one response to every problem -- tax cuts; as John McCain demonstrated when he called for a cut in capital gains taxes in response to the stock market crash (in which very few investors actually had gains). Voters went along with this "borrow from Peter to pay Paul" economics thinking they were (or soon would be) Paul, but now most of them realize that they were Peter all along.

Republicans transferred trillions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans, creating the greatest income disparity since the Depression and increasing the national debt by $8.2 trillion (or nearly $75,000 per household). For nearly thirty years, Republicans have chosen to invest in the rich, but not in America and we are witnessing a "quiet collapse in prosperity" as a result. For example, the current United States' rankings on life expectancy, water quality and infant mortality are 24th, 39th and 41st respectively falling behind countries such as Bosnia, Cuba, Panama, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.

We have lived off the sacrifices of others and let our roads, bridges, water systems and other infrastructure decline to second world levels such that it would cost $1.6 trillion to merely get our current infrastructure to a functional level. But as former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker stressed last week, we need to begin "the physical rebuilding of our nation now."

We also have failed to invest in the infrastructure needed for our future economic growth. Our broadband penetration rank has fallen from 4th to 15th in five years (the reality is much worse since the U.S. measure relies on a methodology that overstates broadband penetration). Future economic growth also will require alternative energy sources, but Republicans have cut funding for alternative energy programs by two-thirds.

Today we have the highest level of income inequality, poverty and deaths due to lack of access to health care and the lowest level of social mobility among leading developed nations; but the Republicans' answer is to give tax cuts to the richest few Americans. We are spending $720 million each day in Iraq; but the Republicans want to stay indefinitely and cut taxes.

Our economy is in peril, but Republicans merely parrot the same lines they have since 1980. Amazingly, as Rome burns, these Deacons of Disaster and Division have the audacity to claim that only they are suited to run this country even when their policies would only feed the flames. The more Republicans claim that the sky will fall when Obama takes office in January, the more they demonstrate how tone deaf they have become.

Despite their sense of entitlement to power, in this country the power comes from the people. It comes from middle class Americans who have been ignored for years (and who pay the price for Republican's sabotaging a potential deal on the Clinton health plan after Bill Kristol warned it would give Democrats an electoral advantage). It comes from aging baby boomers who see a looming crisis with the Medicare and Social Security trust funds that the Republicans refuse to address. It comes from the many young voters whose future has been mortgaged by the Republican's reckless economic policy.

On Election Day, while Republicans desperately cling to their dogma of the past, a tidal wave of voters from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire and all the way to the curvaceous slopes of California will embrace the future. As darkness descends on the "Reagan Revolution," Republicans will discover that what they saw as signs that the sky would fall was simply the dawn of a new horizon.

Follow Bennet Kelley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/surfdc

Comments

[PT6]

For McCain taxes seem to involve "Joe the Plumber" to bring Reagonomics back into the discussion:

McCain could NOT say "Middle Class" in the debates as it appeared to CHOCK him, so he adopted "Joe the Plumber" as a surrogate for the Middle Class. McCain uses "TRICK MIRRORS" to portray "Joe of Wall Street" who wears a suit and tie and makes $350,000+ net income per year to look like "Joe the Plumber" who earns less than $45,000 net per year and wears a T-Shirt.

McCain knows "Joe of Wall Street" appears "Corrupt" in the minds of Middle Class voters! But McCain thinks "Joe the Plumber" is acceptable to the Middle Class! This lets "McCain SERVE the RICH" with TAX CUTS but make it look like he is "Serving the Middle Class."

[nhburdick]

"Our broadband penetration rank has fallen from 4th to 15th in five years (the reality is much worse since the U.S. measure relies on a methodology that overstates broadband penetration). Future economic growth also will require alternative energy sources, but Republicans have cut funding for alternative energy programs by two-thirds.

Today we have the highest level of income inequality, poverty and deaths due to lack of access to health care and the lowest level of social mobility among leading developed nations; but the Republicans' answer is to give tax cuts to the richest few Americans. We are spending $720 million each day in Iraq; but the Republicans want to stay indefinitely and cut taxes."

Thanks for posting these comments -- what amazes me is how actual facts don't resound, but rather only empty rhetoric for the right. Why is it the 'conservatives' aren't concerned with conserving the gold standard by which America has stood apart for the last century?

Holding dear the aspirations of our founding fathers should mean promoting the general welfare -- and that is what the Republicans are trying to spin into 'socialism' -- amazing.

[olephart]

Comparing the debt incurred to the resulting growth yields a net negative for Reaganomics. They never “grew their way out”. It was only through continuing to borrow and spend that the appearance of “growth” was maintained. The argument for increasing revenues was also specious. Revenues have grown in every Administration since World War II with or without tax cuts. The first two years of Reagan’s term revenues fell and never recovered enough to break even. Bush Senior raised taxes not because he wanted to but because he had to. The deficit he inherited was a direct result of the Voodoo economics he once criticized. The claim that lowering marginal rates for the highest incomes leads to increased economic growth has no statistical basis in reality. At no time during Bush Junior’s terms did economic growth exceed that in the Clinton Administration if deficits were factored out. Considering deficits, Bush’s Administration would show a net negative. Job growth during Bush’s terms has been a fraction of that in Clinton’s terms. Making the excuse that Bush started with a lower unemployment rate thus job creation was more difficult only shows that the Reaganomics economy that Clinton inherited was dismal and the Clintonomics economy that Bush inherited wasn’t. Even now with the tax cuts still in play the economy is sinking like a stone. Reaganomics was never sound, Bush Senior had it right all along, it’s Voodoo.

[DuganS1]

Of course the Reagan tax cuts led to higher growth. Otherwise how do you explain the high growth rates in the US from the early 80s all the way thru 2007, even when our Japanese and German competitors saw much lower or even declining growth (in the case of Japan)? You're also forgetting that taxes remained low under President Clinton. In fact the top tax rate under Clinton was 39.6%, while it was 50% during Reagan's first six years as President. Clinton also lowered the cap gains tax. I have no idea wha the "Reagan economy that Clinton inherited was dismal" comment means. The economy had been recovering for over a year when Clinton became President, and economic growth during the Jan 1993 to Jan 1996 period was relatively weak by historical standards. Now I was a supporter of Clinton and thought he did a fantastic job regarding the budget and free trade, but to give Cllnton's policies credit for the tech boom in the late 90s thru 2000 is being disingenius.

[Rule Of Law]

American Industrialists began deserting this country as a reaction to Reagan's policies, as enacted by Volcker, that made America such a hostile climate for domestic businesses. Volcker may have succeeded in wringing inflation out of the system but at the cost of Industry moving overseas. Washington ran heavy deficits throughout the 1980s, with the federal debt tripling. The international balance of payments went from equilibrium to an annual deficit of over $100 billion, and the distribution of income became less equal. You get that, right? Federal Debt tripling!!!

Why hey, if I can take on debt (just like Bush and Greedspan have) to make my bottom line look like we're making a profit--not just churning owed monies--I could make any business look viable. But it ain't, and the proof is in the next recession BushI inherited from Reagans voo doo economics, and this one engineered by his son using the same discredited notions.

Anyone who still believes Reagan or Bush are economic heroes needs to remember that, "United States' rankings on life expectancy, water quality and infant mortality are 24th, 39th and 41st respectively falling behind countries such as Bosnia, Cuba, Panama, Sri Lanka and Vietnam."

[DuganS1]

American industrials didn't "desert this country as a reaction to Reagan's policies". Some of them deserted because they couldn't compete against foreign competitors and either went out of business or would have had they not moved some operations to lower cost and more labor friendly environments. About rankings on life expectancy, President's Reagan and Bush can't force people to eat well and exercise. About water quality, you're comparing the US vs much smaller countries, plus a large number of consumers now days only drink bottled water anyway. About infant mortality, this all because of poor inner city hospitals, women having children later in life, and the increased used of fertility drugs in the US.

[Bennet Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

Are you seriously responding to our declining infant mortality standard by blaming it on the victims? Can you name one respected study or academic who holds this same conclusion? As you stab at possible explanations that would absolve Reagan-Bush you ignore lack of access to health care.

It is clear you are grasping at straws when you argue that it is okay that we have a lower standard than Vietnam et al since they are smaller countries -- when the data is on a per capita basis.

[jmpurser]

Thank you. Excellent piece. I get so frustrated at people telling me that the current crisis is the result of (I'm not making this up) "Bush abandoning Reagan's principles and acting like a liberal!"

We dug our current hole for 30 years not 8. This really is Ronald Reagan's America.

[metfan5567]

We are the grasshopper, not the ant.

And the only thing to "trickle down" in the last 30 years is the culture of debt. Plus a lot of yellow liquid down the necks of the "Joe the Plumbers."
It's a wonder that so many people still think that it is just rain flowing down their backs.

[DuganS1]

Deregulation started in the 70s and gained significant momentum under Carter, before Reagan became President. As for "Reaganomics", I see the author overlooks that there has only been two short and shallow recessions since 1982, the year Reagan's policies began to filter into the economy, and inflation and unemployment levels have been low throughout the entire period. For the period from 1969-1982, in contrast, the economy saw three significant recessions, very high inflation, and very high unemployment. Since 1982 we've also seen a massive increase in the number of consumer goods and services available to regular, and even the poorest Americans. The infrastructure issue is completely overblown. There has been significant investment in certain areas of infrastructure like water treatment plants and roads during this period and those investment levels had increased dramatically from 2005 until now. If people use the past month's events as some kind of evidence that Reagan's policies have somehow failed, why don't they use the massive 1974 and 1982 recessions as evidence that the previous union-based economy had failed? Even now the unemployment rate is only just over 6%. That rate in 74-75 went over 9% and the recession Reagan inherited in the early 80s went over 10%. I think people are just using the events of the past month or two as justification for their political views.

[Bennet Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment.

Its very hard to compare the 70's to any other period because of its own unique economic catalysts -an overheated economy due to Johnson's guns and butter decision, the end of price controls and two oil shocks (not to mention the pernicious effect of disco) - and it is also unfair to pin them solely on Carter.

To his credit, however, Carter appointed a strong Fed chairman (Paul Volcker) who under both Carter and Reagan beat inflation into submission; began reducing the deficit (despite beginning the post-Vietnam military buildup), and oddly enough had the highest average monthly job growth rate of any post-Watergate president

The recovery from the '82 recession was a classic Keynesian recovery. Reagan's policies only filtered into the deficit.

You gloss over the infrastructure issue - but it is a fact that we are spending only 1/3 of what we once did. You cite roads and water treatment plants but the City of Atlanta loses approx. 20 percent of its water to leaks and how steep a tax do we all pay for the delays and damage due to decaying roads?

The events of the last few months only reminded us that not only is the bill going to come due soon but it is much steeper than we ever imagine. And John Q Public is asking what he has to show for all the money he has paid out to Richie Rich (and is it greater than $75K per household).

[marignymitch]

Hey! That disco jab was a cheap shot.

Disco was our nation's strongest antidote to Nixonmania.

[January]

Yes, if there is one thing we can thank the Shrub for it is showing that economic recovery during Reagan's presidency had nothing to do with Reagan's announced policies. The Shrub pushed those very same policies--cut taxes on the wealthy, extravagant military spending, endless public debt--and the consequence this time is economic depression.

Apologists for Reagan are to be expected. What we hear from "the party of memory" is always the same--we were right! do it our way! do what we told you to do in 1930! Herbert Hoover was right! Reagan was right! Bush was right! The disasters are the fault of others!

[PublicAdvocate]

The fruits of Reagan-Capitalism are upon us and ruining the economy thanks to deregulation.
Many right-wing wackos are blaming Democrats for "liberal spending" and for meddling in the free-market system and for the decline of America.

Don't just lie down and take it folks. Take the fight to them! Join me and other Progressive Americans and go to: http://TownHall.com

The Right Wing Bunker of Republican lies and misinformation.

Topics there for you to disabuse Republicans of include:
*The Christian Case Against Obama
*If Obama Can't Win He'll Steal
*Top Ten Reasons to vote for McCain/Palin
*The Great Temptation
*Do The Rich Owe Us?
*Freedom Matters

While its great to hang out and publish here. Help correct the right wingers of their myopia at TownHall.

[DuganS1]

Deregulation started in the 1970s under President Carter. The Gramm bill was strongly backed by Dem-Secretary of the Treasury Rubin and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

[Bennet Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

You mean you've ventured into the Death Star? ;)

[BillZBubb]

We can only hope so. It is truly amazing that it has taken a majority of Americans this long to wake up and realize the disaster that Reagan, Bush and the Republicans have foisted on our country.

Too many voters have been willing accomplices to the greatest heist in history. They helped wage class warfare against themselves.

[kjstjohn]

This year the "red scare" is the terrifying possibility that the red states will decide the economic future of the country.

[Bennet Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

Nice turn of a phrase.

[mommadona]

Beautifully stated.

"It's 'we, the people', stupid."

Free will and personal responsibility followed by accountability.

Onward!