This week I stumbled on the figure below regarding Reagan's tax record at around the same time we got the TPC score of the Cain 9-9-9 tax plan.
The party may revere Reagan, but they definitely wouldn't recognize each other if they met at a tax policy conference today. Nor would the gipper last for long on the Republicans side of the deficit-reduction super committee. Recall from work done by my CBPP colleague Kathy Ruffing that 82% of the savings in the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act came from revenues.
(I realize I'm straying into a space that the former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett covers extremely well, by the way.)
Anyway, with the caveat that I'm no psychotherapist, let me offer a few new categories from the fiscal DSM-IV:
- Hyper-Inequality Syndrome: The average level of income inequality (percent going to top 1%) from 1980-89 was 12.6%; from 2000-08 it was 20.3%. That's an increase in over $600 billion to the richest households (using most recent Piketty/Saez inequality data).
As I noted yesterday re the Koch brothers support of Herman Cain, these investors expect to get something for their money, and we should thus see a positive correlation between income concentration and regressive tax proposals. Which we do.
- YOYO Syndrome: Conservative economics is increasing YOYO (You're On Your Own) economics. Privatize, voucherize, disinvest in the public sector, and shrink government all under the rubric that private markets are more efficient, self-regulate, do not fail, and generate better outcomes in this the best of all possible worlds. In practice, YOYO'ism has delivered a large shift in the locus of economic risk from government and firms to households.
But in theory, in YOYO world, you need to keep all your money for yourself. Note, however, that this doesn't explain the increase in taxes on the bottom 84% in the Cain plan. I'm not saying I miss Reaganomics... I don't. But he wouldn't have gone there.
- Groveritis: If there were people running around during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush 1 years trying to extract Norquistian pledges to never raise taxes, I didn't run into them. But I suspect they were there -- just nobody felt compelled to listen to them. Again, what changed? Perhaps this:
- Government Is the Problem: This, of course, started rhetorically with Reagan himself, but it has gone viral in the worst way. There are two reinforcing dynamics here with regard to taxes. First, as middle-class and low-income family incomes have declined in real terms, the idea of sending money that you need to make ends meet to politicians to spend on their boondoggles is... um... distasteful.
And then there's this: if you are of the party that believes that government is the problem and want to make that point abundantly clear to all, then, when you are in power, you will do your best to prove that government is the problem. For example, you might waste valuable months fighting about the debt ceiling and threatening default, at a time when most Americans want and need you to do something about the economy. And in so doing, you fulfill your prophecy that government is the problem, and families should not throw their much-needed good money after bad.
Hmmm... When you lay it out this way, it actually doesn't seem so daunting: we need less inequality, no electing anyone who pledges to anything other than the flag, a re-shift in the locus of risk from YOYO to WITT ("we're in this together"), and a renewed understanding of the need for an amply funded and properly sized federal government in an increasingly challenging world.
Easy-peasy!
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
Robert Pozen: Herman Cain's Retirement Proposal
Ellen Miller: How to Achieve Transparency for the Super Committee
David Frum: Why I Am Still a Republican
Since Reagan the GOP conservative have been out to starve, drown, corrupt and bankrupt the BEAST, our republic, the USA, so the rich can rule. They are modern day Tories. How any patriotic American, or ordinary citizen can vote for them, is beyond me.
Most Americans don't even know that the founders were Locke liberals fighting against the Burke conservative richest 1000 families and their British Empire. They don't know that conservatism was founded to "conserve" the rule by the wealthy against democracy. They don't know that the Boston Tea party was not against taxes, and strong government, it was against a multinational using money as free speech to get unfair tax advantage from the British empire. The East India company. They were against the lack of representation they had versus the East India company.
But Reagan convinced the fools that the republic was the enemy, and the rich and the big companies were our salvation.
Then Reagan's victory convinced the Clinton DLC democrats to sellout to win. So after Clinton, the democrats did not represent the citizens anymore, though still much less anti republic and anti citizen than the GOP.
What can you do?
Vote for the Kucinich, Grayson Dean CPC progressives in the primaries and the dems in the general. And stop being fooled by the pretty well sold candidates and the smearing of the true citizens candidates.
This was also accomplished with maximum tax rates of between 70% to 94% for the very rich.We were a great nation accomplishing great things! We also had 13 billionaires.
Since 1980, a drastic tax reduction experiment was initiated by the GOP, with maximum income tax rates cut from 70% to 50% to 30%.
The results of this 30 year "experiment" are in, and they are ugly! The national debt has increased to more than $14 trillion, the Bush (the lessor) economic collapse was felt worldwide,
unemployment is above 9% and the recent debt ceiling fiasco was a national embarassment. The only notable U.S. accomplishment since 1980 was the creation of another 400 billionaires.
The cause-and-effect relationship between tax cuts for the very rich and the national debt crisis should be obvious.
And, the debt crisis fix should be equally obvious, unless you are a republican!
There is a certain attraction to Libertarianism I'll concede to. However, that philosophy, measured in terms of possibility of achievement, stands a much better chance under progressive leadership than under modern conservatism as represented by the GOP. You really should consider, at least, the party that wishes to see our representative Republic survive with basic remnants of our constitution intact. For all of it's lip service to the founders, the GOP is embroiled in a destructive course for our Republic that will not end well for those of you libertarian types who give your support to false flags and purposeful destruction of our economy.
We really need a separation of market and State... because whenever the political class intervenes into the economy, they unwittingly cause big trouble (Fannie n Freddie being a global economic catastr0phe).
Libertarians have it mostly right... (except on foreign policy)... Today's 'Progressives' are too heavily invested in the big government machine. Their big government policies squelch economic growth which hurts people at the bottom end of the socioeconomic ladder. Even if it helps them at the baIIot box.
Look, I'm not a big fan of the Republican party... they are too invested in maintaining the status quo. We need to shake up Washington and set a new course that liberalizes our economy and sets the precedent for how a free society can compete in the 21st century... considering the challenges that await us.
I appreciate your comments.
Another home run, Jared. In understand how bad the ultra-rightist Republicans are, people have to pay attention not only to policy positions, policy proposals, and individual actions; but they also must pay attention to the processes as a whole. Unless you understand the process quoted above and see how Republican legislators' actions have fit like a walnut in its shell, you will not understand how truly dangerous they are.
If you want we'll have a going away party for you.
Make that a 'go away! party'.
These numbers have been available for 3 years! Are people really that stooopid???
Apparently we are.