Democrats are beginning to sound more and more like Ronald Reagan.
Sure, Mitt Romney and Republicans alike love to talk about their late leader and what he represented. And yes, he deplored the notion of big government and laid the foundation for what is now the Tea Party. But if President Reagan were still around, he would likely have trouble identifying with what today's Republican party represents.
In 1985, President Reagan spoke to a high school in Atlanta, telling a story of a letter received. The letter was from a man making six figures, Reagan said, who complained that he could legally pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Sound familiar?
But unfortunately, Mr. Reagan is currently being framed as the unreasonable, anti-tax crusader that now defines the Republican party. In the midst of the Paul Ryan budget, which deepens the disastrous trend President Reagan identified, a crucial reality check is in order.
The Republican budget, authored by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, clearly outlines the party's priorities: concentrate as much wealth at the top as possible, while slashing all programs that disproportionately help the least well-off Americans. The rationale? We can't afford to spend, and when the rich are rich, we are all better off.
Let's tackle the spending part first. What no Republican will admit is that the rich benefit far more from government spending than the poor. After accounting for deductions and the extremely low rates on capital gains and dividends, it turns out that Americans in the top fifth of incomes receive more benefits from the government than those in the bottom fifth. But when it comes to spending, Republicans refuse to talk about the spending that benefits the rich. The only things they are willing to cut are programs like food stamps and Medicaid that keep people out of poverty and are actually much cheaper.
Thus, the logic simply does not add up: how can a party be so strongly opposed to government spending and still advocate to spend more on tax cuts?
To address the second point, that the richer the rich the better, all we need to do is look at history. President Bush tried out that theory, known as trickle down economics, by slashing tax rates for the rich, and look what happened -- we got the greatest recession since the Great Depression.
In fact, in 1960, the top tax rate was over 70 percent, and unemployment was around five percent. Since then, the top rate has fallen all the way to 35 percent. According to Republicans, that should have done wonders for our economy. It didn't -- unemployment has been around eight percent for months.
One can also look to the Clinton years for an answer. According to data from the IRS, the richest 400 Americans paid around 30 percent in taxes during President Clinton's first term, when over 11 million jobs were created. Now, the richest 400 Americans pay around 18 percent in taxes, and job creation is stagnated.
But will higher rates cause people to pack their bags and take their business elsewhere, as many fear? Not according to the economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty. Their argument: we've had higher rates before and other countries currently have much higher rates. Economic output did not, and still does not, suffer at all -- in fact, it was even better.
In 2010, 97 percent of total income gains in the United States went to the richest one percent of Americans. Since 1960, tax rates on the wealthiest Americans have fallen over 100 percent, while their incomes have increased over 500 percent. Middle class families, on the other hand, saw an income increase of just 72 percent, and their tax rate essentially stayed the same. And to make matters worse, when we talk about government spending, we only talk about the spending that helps the lowest income Americans, neglecting the higher share of government spending that goes straight to the rich.
So when you are casting your vote for president next November, ask yourself this question: Do I really want an America where we shower the rich with benefits, allow their incomes to soar, and turn a blind eye to those who are less well-off? That's the vision Governor Romney called "marvelous," and the one President Obama rightfully called "social darwinism." And it's the vision that just may make Ronald Reagan a democratic hero after all.
Follow Jess Coleman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jesskcoleman
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," Reagan said. "In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary, and that’s crazy."
Reagan then asked the crowd, "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?" The crowd roared "More!" in response, causing Reagan to flash a broad smile."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/ronald-reagan-warren-buffet-rule-president-obama.html
Reagan would be drummed out of today's Republican party if he dared speak such heresy in public. THAT'S the Republican party of today.......
The lie about "the dem controlled congess" needs to end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/97th_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/98th_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99th_United_States_Congress
See Table F1 deficit.
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/HistoricalBudgetData.xls
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911
The fact is, Ronald Reagan was as cruel and callous a reactionary as it was politically possible to be during the 1970s and 1980s and the only thing that stopped his further devolution into something as dreadful as a Republican of today was Alzheimer's disease.
Reagan is the prophet of the the ideology of greed, selfishness, heartlessness and militarism that has become the repulsive ideological core of today's Republican party.
There is no need to invoke Reagan's name as though he was some towering giant whose virtuous spirit walks in the Elysian Fields alongside Washington and Jefferson.
Reagan deserves to be remembered alongside presidents like Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, whose "leadership" drove this country off a cliff into the Great Depression.
Did he have a role in ending the Cold War? Yes, but let's not embellish history here. FYI, it was also Reagan's SUPPORT of Unions (Solidarity in Poland) that helped end the Cold War.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
Reagan brought the top marginal rate down from 70% to 28%. The tax "increase" you portray as some liberal scheme, was closing loopholes and eliminating tax breaks!
Deficits went up, but WHO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SPENDING? THE CONGRESS!!!!! The DEMOCRAT MAJORITY couldn't stop spending!
Republicans had the senate majority from Reagan's inauguration til January 3, 1987. The 3 highest "on-budget" annual deficits were during Reagan's first 6 years with a republican majority senate.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/HistoricalBudgetData.xls
The republican's had the power, it was their fault. It's asinine to blame the dems.
The facts don't lie like republicans.
Baloney!!!! Reagan requested MORE money in his budget proposals than the Dem controlled Congress gave him over the course of his Presidency. This was mostly the result of Reagan's proposals making overly optimistic assumptions (what one of his advisers called the "rosy scenario) about the economy and the levels of spending that would be required as a result.
Furthermore, since WWII the ONLY Presidents to NOT reduce the National Debt as a % of GDP (ND/GDP) are Reagan, Bush I and Bush II (and Obama of course). Even Clinton reduced ND/GDP and balanced the budget and left surpluses that were projected to extend for the next decade. Bush II came in and turned that all upside down. And remember, the GOP controlled BOTH HOUSES of Congress from 1995-2007 (except for the Senate for two of those years). So how come Clinton was able to do what he did with a GOP controlled Congress but Bush II couldn't even come close? Yeah, that's a tough one, isn't it?
Reagan was no help to the poor or hurting.
My siblings and I were raised by our widowed mother.
Reagan's policies made our lives worse, and his restrictions on Pell Grants and TAP forced my siblings and I to work tow jobs while attending college to make up the difference that Reagan cut from those programs.
He may have been more progressive than are the republicans now, but he was no friend to the poor in his day.