The Republicans' class war
July 1, 2010
By Tom Maertens
Mankato Free Press
For many years now, Republican economic policy has been built around two principles: “trickle down” and “starve the beast.”
Trickle down is a broad justification for policies favoring the wealthy: Cut taxes on the rich, the theory says, and they will invest, create jobs, and generate more tax revenue. David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, famously acknowledged that “supply-side economics” is simply trickle down by another name.
John Kenneth Galbraith referred to this as the horse and sparrow theory: "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
So how did trickle down work for George W. Bush?
The tax cuts successfully achieved their main purpose: Redistributing the wealth upward to the richest 1 percent, who, not coincidentally, fund the Republican party. The April edition of Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4) gives details.
Thanks to those policies, the richest 1 percent now control 33.8 percent of the wealth while the bottom 50 percent control only 2.5 percent. The same 1 percent now gets about 190 times the median income — far greater inequality than in virtually any other developed country.
As Warren Buffett observed in 2008, “There’s class warfare — but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
If the rich fared well under Bush, the country did not. Bush’s policies resulted in no net new jobs for eight years, ballooning deficits, an unfunded entitlement program, soaring unemployment, falling tax revenues, and a $1.2 trillion deficit for his successor. Middle-income families had a lower net worth and made less at the end of his administration (inflation adjusted) than at the beginning, according to the Washington Post.
The second factor behind Bush’s economic policies was to “starve the beast,” an effort led by The Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative groups to use tax cuts to create huge budget deficits, thereby forcing cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Grover Norquist is the godfather of the group: “My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
In short, Republicans want to bankrupt the government to force it to default on Social Security and Medicare. Dick Cheney encouraged starve-the-beast by declaring that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter,” thus bestowing his personal imprimatur on crackpot economics.
Ronald Reagan began the process with a ruinous tax cut in 1981 and a huge military buildup. The result was that he tripled the debt from $994 billion to $2.9 trillion in eight years. Reagan also shifted the tax burden onto working people by dramatically raising the Social Security tax while decreasing the taxes on dividend and interest income for the wealthy.
George H.W. Bush increased the debt by another 33 percent, largely because of Reagan’s tax cuts, to $4.3 trillion.
By contrast, the Clinton administration’s policies reduced the debt by 10 percent. The key was the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, which every Republican in Congress voted against as “job-killing” tax increases, but almost 23 million jobs were subsequently created during Clinton’s two terms. Fiscally sound policies pay off.
The undisputed champion of borrow-and-spend, however, was George W. Bush. According to the conservative CATO Institute, he presided over an 83 percent increase in overall federal spending while simultaneously turning Clinton’s projected $5 trillion surplus into $5.6 trillion more debt.
He left the country in an economic death spiral that risked another great depression, requiring extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. Had not Obama done so, the country faced a deflationary trap like the one which led to Japan’s “lost decade.”
The stimulus package may be the difference between a severe recession and a full-blown depression; a May CBO report said it preserved as many as 2.8 million jobs through March.
As for the “deficits-don’t-matter” crowd, they seem to have suddenly morphed into deficit hawks, opposing any action at all, even Obama’s tax cuts, in the apparent belief that a bad economy helps them in November.
They are also shedding crocodile tears about the deficits they created, which have run the national debt up so high that nervous Democrats are apparently going to do their dirty work for them. Obama’s commission on the deficit has ten Democrats and eight Republicans, all of them wealthy and several of whom have already stated publicly that they are looking to cut the social safety net.
Ronald Reagan, who got his start in politics campaigning against “socialized medicine” (Medicare), would be pleased.
The rest of us, not so much.
By Tom Maertens
Mankato Free Press
For many years now, Republican economic policy has been built around two principles: “trickle down” and “starve the beast.”
Trickle down is a broad justification for policies favoring the wealthy: Cut taxes on the rich, the theory says, and they will invest, create jobs, and generate more tax revenue. David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, famously acknowledged that “supply-side economics” is simply trickle down by another name.
John Kenneth Galbraith referred to this as the horse and sparrow theory: "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
So how did trickle down work for George W. Bush?
The tax cuts successfully achieved their main purpose: Redistributing the wealth upward to the richest 1 percent, who, not coincidentally, fund the Republican party. The April edition of Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4) gives details.
Thanks to those policies, the richest 1 percent now control 33.8 percent of the wealth while the bottom 50 percent control only 2.5 percent. The same 1 percent now gets about 190 times the median income — far greater inequality than in virtually any other developed country.
As Warren Buffett observed in 2008, “There’s class warfare — but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
If the rich fared well under Bush, the country did not. Bush’s policies resulted in no net new jobs for eight years, ballooning deficits, an unfunded entitlement program, soaring unemployment, falling tax revenues, and a $1.2 trillion deficit for his successor. Middle-income families had a lower net worth and made less at the end of his administration (inflation adjusted) than at the beginning, according to the Washington Post.
The second factor behind Bush’s economic policies was to “starve the beast,” an effort led by The Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative groups to use tax cuts to create huge budget deficits, thereby forcing cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Grover Norquist is the godfather of the group: “My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
In short, Republicans want to bankrupt the government to force it to default on Social Security and Medicare. Dick Cheney encouraged starve-the-beast by declaring that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter,” thus bestowing his personal imprimatur on crackpot economics.
Ronald Reagan began the process with a ruinous tax cut in 1981 and a huge military buildup. The result was that he tripled the debt from $994 billion to $2.9 trillion in eight years. Reagan also shifted the tax burden onto working people by dramatically raising the Social Security tax while decreasing the taxes on dividend and interest income for the wealthy.
George H.W. Bush increased the debt by another 33 percent, largely because of Reagan’s tax cuts, to $4.3 trillion.
By contrast, the Clinton administration’s policies reduced the debt by 10 percent. The key was the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, which every Republican in Congress voted against as “job-killing” tax increases, but almost 23 million jobs were subsequently created during Clinton’s two terms. Fiscally sound policies pay off.
The undisputed champion of borrow-and-spend, however, was George W. Bush. According to the conservative CATO Institute, he presided over an 83 percent increase in overall federal spending while simultaneously turning Clinton’s projected $5 trillion surplus into $5.6 trillion more debt.
He left the country in an economic death spiral that risked another great depression, requiring extraordinary expenditures to rescue the financial system. Had not Obama done so, the country faced a deflationary trap like the one which led to Japan’s “lost decade.”
The stimulus package may be the difference between a severe recession and a full-blown depression; a May CBO report said it preserved as many as 2.8 million jobs through March.
As for the “deficits-don’t-matter” crowd, they seem to have suddenly morphed into deficit hawks, opposing any action at all, even Obama’s tax cuts, in the apparent belief that a bad economy helps them in November.
They are also shedding crocodile tears about the deficits they created, which have run the national debt up so high that nervous Democrats are apparently going to do their dirty work for them. Obama’s commission on the deficit has ten Democrats and eight Republicans, all of them wealthy and several of whom have already stated publicly that they are looking to cut the social safety net.
Ronald Reagan, who got his start in politics campaigning against “socialized medicine” (Medicare), would be pleased.
The rest of us, not so much.
Labels: Barack Obama, deficits, George W. Bush, tax cuts
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Great editorial, Tom !
A couple thoughts … it’s not only the skewing toward the wealthy individual, but also the dominance in large corporations and those that feed off those corporations --- the investment bankers who pay 15% capital gains tax on bringing an IPO to market; the elected politicians (and staff) that become lobbyists; the foreign workers that displace American jobs, etc. Take any issue (healthcare reform, banking reform, campaign financing, climate change, oil drilling, etc.) and it’s the influence of the corporations that dictate the terms.
The GW Bush years were also highlighted by the rise of military spending … as Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote : Not counting the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “base” Pentagon budget has increased from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion for 2011 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the newest US defense budget data. Over the past decade, this means a cumulative total increase of almost $1 Trillion for the base DOD budget.
Who are we gearing up to fight … stateless terrorists who use commercial airliners as weapons or Russia and China … now, which will hit us first ?
The winner is the corporations.
Note also, Boehner’s comments this week about raising the Social Security age as the solution to America’s rising national debt … however when asked about funding the war in Afghanistan, given his dire view of the government's financial condition, he replied: "How can we afford not to? The number one responsibility of the federal government ... is to provide security to the American people. As difficult as it is and as expensive as it is, we don't have a choice."
No, there is a choice … don’t waste monies on unnecessary military programs.
Post a Comment
<< Home