Author Topic: The Great Reagan Myth  (Read 1273 times)

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
The Great Reagan Myth
« on: December 14, 2012, 01:44:59 PM »
I've actually argued about the specifics of his "budget cuts" on this board before, but it is hard to get online documentation from such a long time ago. This should be an eye-opener for some.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-historical-myth-that-reagan-raised-1-in-taxes-for-every-3-in-spending-cuts/2012/12/13/58a33e4c-4555-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_blog.html

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts

“In 1982, Ronald Reagan sat down with the Democrats and they had a deal — a $3 cut in spending for every dollar they raised in taxes. Guess what? They raised the taxes, and they never cut the spending.”
— oft-repeated story told in Washington during “fiscal cliff” negotiations
It had become an article of faith by conservatives that President Reagan reluctantly agreed to raise taxes in his first term in office — and that Congress then failed to follow though on promised spending cuts. The frequent recitation of this story during the current fiscal debate made us wonder: What actually happened three decades ago?
It’s not hard to find the source of this story — Reagan’s own memoir, “An American Life.” Here’s what he wrote: “I made a deal with the congressional Democrats in 1982, agreeing to support a limited loophole-closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for their agreement to cut spending by $280 billion during the same period; later the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”
When Reagan made a nationally-televised speech in support of the tax hike — trying to refute charges that it was the biggest tax increase in U.S. history — he also cited a 3-to-1 agreement:
 “Revenues would increase over a three-year period by about $99 billion, and outlays in that same period would be reduced by $280 billion. Now, as you can see, that figures out to about a 3-to-1 ratio — $3 less in spending outlays for each $1 of increased revenue. This compromise adds up to a total over three years of a $380 billion reduction in the budget deficits.”
The Washington Post did not have a Fact Checker column back then, and this speech certainly would have been ripe for fact checking. (We would have been suspicious of his use of the word “outlays.”) Let’s go back in time to show what really happened, using documents, news reports and memoirs of the period.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2012, 01:45:58 PM »
The Facts
 Despite Reagan’s claim that he made a deal with the Democrats, the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas — then chairman of the Finance Committee and later the majority leader and Republican nominee for president — was a driving force behind a big tax increase because he was concerned about soaring deficits after Reagan had boosted defense spending and slashed taxes.
Dole warned the White House that the final year of Reagan’s three-year tax cut was at risk unless revenue could be raised in other ways. Under Dole’s leadership, the Senate Finance Committee led the way in crafting a big tax bill, fending off efforts by Democrats to halt Reagan’s tax cut.
 Key people on Reagan’s team — especially budget director David Stockman and White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III — were eager to rein in the deficit. But others, such a Treasury Secretary Donald Regan, were skeptical of a deal. Regan, in his memoir “For the Record,” proudly notes that he demanded a ratio of $1 in tax increases for $3 in spending cuts.
 Stockman, in an interview, acknowledged that “we needed a 3-to-1 ratio to get the deal accepted by Reagan and the Adam Smith tie boys (e.g. Ed Meese, et al).”  But it appears that Reagan and Regan did not actually understand the mechanics of the agreement. It turns out that much of the savings were not from spending cuts — and many of the savings were dependent on actions by the Reagan administration.
 Here’s the actual breakdown of the three-year agreement, according to a June 1982 chart prepared by the GOP-controlled Senate Budget Committee staff, which appears in the 1989 book “The Deficit and the Public Interest,” by Joseph White and Aaron B. Wildavsky. (Note: The numbers represent reductions from anticipated, inflation-adjusted outlays.)
  Revenues: $98.3 billion (26 percent)
Defense cuts: $26.4 billion (7 percent)
Nondefense cuts: $34.8 billion (9.1 percent)
Entitlement cuts: $30.8 billion (8.1 percent)
Other reductions/offsets: $7.8 billion (2 percent)
Freeze federal pay raise: $26.1 billion  (6.9 percent)
Management savings: $46.6 billion  (12.3 percent)
Net interest: $107.7 billion (28.4 percent)
Total non-revenue: $280.2 billion (74 percent)
Total: $378.5 billion
 We will never know if Reagan saw this specific breakdown. On the surface, one could plausibly believe there was a ratio of 3 to 1 in terms of lower outlays to higher taxes, as Reagan put it in his speech. But a reduction in “outlays” is not the same as cutting spending on programs.
 Indeed, almost half of the “cuts,” such as interest savings on debt (from lower interest costs and reduced deficits) and “management savings,” were beyond the control of Congress. At best, the spending savings that Congress could deliver, including defense cuts, amounted to a 1-to-1 ratio.
 Congress passed $30 billion in spending cuts (mostly on entitlement programs) at the same time as the tax bill, according to news reports; The Washington Post described the twin congressional actions as “enormous bills by historical standards.” Lawmakers then struggled much of the next year to cut spending even more. But news reports also show the administration repeatedly failed to deliver on its side of the spending-cut bargain.
 Stockman says the $46 billion in management savings “was just a made-up target that never really had any content” in order to reach the 3-to-1 ratio. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger simply refused to comply with the agreement, and so Reagan’s future budgets ignored the requirements for proposing defense cuts. Stockman says the entitlement cuts — mainly price controls on Medicare billing — were implemented but “got lost in higher-than-expected Medicare inflation.”
  “In essence, the funny numbers, meant to impress voters and maybe the markets, fooled the president. They also fooled Donald Regan and Ed Meese,” write White and Wildavsky. “To Stockman, Baker, [Richard] Darman and congressional leaders, this sense of betrayal was ludicrous; no one ever said Congress would pass three-for-one. The [congressional budget] resolution was clear enough about that.”
 Stockman, in his memoir, “The Triumph of Politics,” blames the late Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) — later Dole’s vice presidential running mate — for convincing Reagan that he had been “hornswoggled” by Congress. By Stockman’s accounting, Congress did reasonably well in meeting the terms of the deal, but the administration failed to live up to its end of the bargain. “Reagan did get tricked — mainly by Weinberger and his own Cabinet,” Stockman said this week.
 Dole felt compelled to send Reagan a letter on Jan. 16, 1984, clarifying what had actually happened:
 The most frequently voiced objections to packaging new spending cuts and revenue increases together is that Congress would enact the new taxes but renege on the spending cuts. These critics cite as evidence the alleged failure of Congress in 1982 to deliver any of the promised three dollars in spending cuts for each dollar of tax increase. I respectfully submit, Mr. President, that you were not “taken in” by this budget plan.
 In fact, historical budget data show that Congress did reduce spending. From 1982 to 1983, nondefense discretionary spending fell from 4.3 percent to 4.2 percent of the overall economy (gross domestic product) — and then kept falling until it reached 3.4 percent of GDP in 1989. Defense spending kept going up until 1986.
 
The Pinocchio Test
 It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.
 Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.
 If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.
 Four Pinocchios

magikusar

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 2830
  • Team Ayn Rand
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2012, 01:56:26 PM »
the myth is that reagan did not prove democrats and keynesian economics wrong

there has bene no end to reagan defamtion in 90s n 200s but its all bullshit

reagan showed in your face that cuting taxes means growth

if dem congress has stuck to promised cuts deficit woulda evaporated but they continued to spend more n more

must also cut spening at same time

dems hate ti cuz it always works and takes away the crony cash

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2012, 02:08:25 PM »
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

Quote
As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

Quote
Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2012, 02:14:06 PM »
I know it was a lot of text, so just two bits from the article I posted above:

Quote
reports also show the administration repeatedly failed to deliver on its side of the spending-cut bargain.
 Stockman says the $46 billion in management savings “was just a made-up target that never really had any content” in order to reach the 3-to-1 ratio. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger simply refused to comply with the agreement, and so Reagan’s future budgets ignored the requirements for proposing defense cuts. Stockman says the entitlement cuts — mainly price controls on Medicare billing — were implemented but “got lost in higher-than-expected Medicare inflation.”

 
Quote
On the surface, one could plausibly believe there was a ratio of 3 to 1 in terms of lower outlays to higher taxes, as Reagan put it in his speech. But a reduction in “outlays” is not the same as cutting spending on programs.

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59705
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2012, 02:36:58 PM »
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/the-four-pillars-of-reaganomics

And..

In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies.  As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics.  That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History Peter Ferrara Peter Ferrara Contributor
Obama Victory Could Spell End Of Conservative Supreme Court Daniel Fisher Daniel Fisher Forbes Staff
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? Rick Ungar Rick Ungar Contributor
The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church Charles Kadlec Charles Kadlec Contributor

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed.  Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%.  It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently.  The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years.  The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.  The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.  They wrote:

    We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet.  In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars.  By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion.  Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics.  Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax.  As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year.  The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times.  The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors.  The death tax rate would go back up to 55%.  In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill.  In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.
President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History Peter Ferrara Peter Ferrara Contributor
Obama Victory Could Spell End Of Conservative Supreme Court Daniel Fisher Daniel Fisher Forbes Staff
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? Rick Ungar Rick Ungar Contributor
The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church Charles Kadlec Charles Kadlec Contributor

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well.  Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere.  While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.  After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more.  After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months.  Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression.  Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery.  Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years.  Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years.  By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression.  But this is not correct.  This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.  Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective.  While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/


What Obama and other socialists have proposed has NEVER worked. In the short time that socialist has been in power in France, it has gone down hill 10 fold.

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2012, 03:12:02 PM »
Funny how the debt is only relevant when a dem is in office.

Reagan doubled the debt FYI

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59705
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2012, 03:21:06 PM »
Funny how the debt is only relevant when a dem is in office.

Reagan doubled the debt FYI

Debt goes up with every president...just not over a trillion for every year in office ::)

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2012, 03:24:37 PM »
Debt goes up with every president...just not over a trillion for every year in office ::)

Well you wanted those wars and tax cuts so stop complaining ::)

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59705
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2012, 03:35:06 PM »
Well you wanted those wars and tax cuts so stop complaining ::)

I'm not. people voted on both sides to go to war after 9/11. Funny, Bush how Bush can still create jobs during war but Obama, well..

AbrahamG

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18184
  • Team Pfizer
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2012, 03:46:59 PM »
Lies, lies and more lies. 

magikusar

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 2830
  • Team Ayn Rand
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2012, 05:51:34 PM »
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm


all bullshit

and remember obama started with 8T and ended 17T after 4 years

thats more than all previous president together

2013 with be known as taxmageddon

hurting poor and middle class as 2008 ed n fannie n clinton rule fannie had to loan to poor did

thanks dem morons!

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2012, 02:27:32 AM »
Debt goes up with every president...just not over a trillion for every year in office ::)

Wait til 2016, ...if a Republican (or Democrat) holds the Whitehouse, the debt will double whatever it is when they take office (provided the system manages to stay alive until then) That's simply the nature of a fiat debt money system. Each President / Administration needs to leave ofice having spent twice as much as his predecessor, or the system will collapse.

I never understood that until a few years ago. Now that I do, everything is much clearer. It also explains the seemingly ingruous actions of previous Conservative admins. I used to think it was because they were simply a bunch of hypocrites, but then I realized it was more than mere hypocrisy, it was a fiscal imperative. Conservatives notorious or cutting spending, and wanting small governments etc; are increasing spending, increasing the size of government, and adding to national debt. Why? ...they have no choice but to increase the debt, or the system will collapse. Sad but true.
w

WOOO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18158
  • Fuck the mods
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2012, 03:30:29 AM »
 FACT: Reagan was a dumb man... an actor... he played the President on TV... he never actually made a political decision

SOURCE: my brain

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59705
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2012, 08:20:10 AM »
FACT: Reagan was a dumb man... an actor... he played the President on TV... he never actually made a political decision

SOURCE: my brain

It appears you're even too lazy to think.

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2012, 11:34:47 AM »
FACT: Reagan was a dumb man... an actor... he played the President on TV... he never actually made a political decision

SOURCE: my brain



Reagan was actually a successful 2x Governor of California.

Pushing the "he was an actor!" meme is pretty silly and ignorant.

erics

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
Re: The Great Reagan Myth
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2012, 02:51:28 PM »
...they have no choice but to increase the debt, or the system will collapse.

Why would it collapse?