Conservative Republicans were wrong about Reagan's massive tax increases, too.

[BurtWorm]

Wrong is their middle name, as Steve Benen of Political Animal demonstrates:


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017177.php


March 6, 2009

IT'S LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN.... I'd mentioned earlier that Ronald Reagan raised taxes, repeatedly, as part of his economic agenda. Bruce Bartlett recently took a closer look at those policies, and what the president's conservative allies were saying about the increases at the time.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, Ronald Reagan proposed the largest peacetime tax increase in American history as part of a budget deal to get the federal deficit under control. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 was signed into law on Sept. 3, and most of its provisions took effect on Jan. 1, 1983.

During debate on TEFRA, many conservatives predicted economic disaster. They argued that raising taxes in the midst of a severe recession was exactly the wrong thing to do. "Every school child knows you don't raise taxes in a recession unless you want to make it worse," The Wall Street Journal's editorial page warned. Said Rep. Newt Gingrich, "I think it will make the economy sicker." The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. said it had "no doubt that it will curb the economic recovery everyone wants."

Looking at the data, however, it is very hard to see any evidence that TEFRA had a negative effect on growth. Indeed, one could easily make a case that its enactment stimulated growth.

It's a reminder of just how wrong the exact same cast of characters has been for quite a long while. When Reagan raised taxes, Gingrich, the WSJ editorial page, and conservative activists thought it would produce awful results. It didn't. When Clinton raised taxes, the same motley crew raised the same dire warnings about recessions and unemployment. They were wrong again. When Bush cut taxes, these same observers predicted robust economic growth and balanced budgets for years to come. That ... how do I put this gently ... didn't quite work out.

And now, here we are again, with Obama presenting an ambitious economic plan, some of which includes targeted tax increases. And wouldn't you know it, Gingrich, the WSJ editorial page, conservative activists everywhere, and a handful of useless Democrats are complaining about the dire consequences of modest tax increases.

One would like to think that being wrong, over and over again, about the exact same issue, might lead some of these characters to back off. Likewise, one might also like to think that major news outlets, recognizing how wrong these folks have been for the last few decades, might stop taking their prognostications seriously. Alas, this is not the case.

Bartlett concluded, "<W>hen Republicans claim that higher taxes will destroy the economy, they should be reminded that they made the same argument in 1982 and 1993 and that the actual economic results were the opposite of what they predicted. And when they denounce Obama's health plan for expanding the size of government, they should be asked how they voted on the Medicare bill in 2003."

—Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[seemunkee]

2. K&R

I doubt if even they believe it but they got to keep yelling or someone might peek behind the curtain and see the truth

[dalaigh lllama]

3. Evidently they have short term memory loss

So when will M$M point this out?

[BurtWorm]

4. They especially don't like to talk about the fact that Reagan raised taxes.

They've completely forgotten that little inconvenient truth.

[indepat]

5. The SOBs know they can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the

time. :P

[Xolodno]

6. Reagan...

...was a RINO. Plain and simple.

Yes, he raised Taxes, but he also;

1. Engaged in Economic Protectionism (slapped tariffs on when he believed another country wasn't playing fair).

2. Negotiated with "Evil Empires"...Something W. should have learned from him.

3. Was willing to bow to pressure from Congress and withdraw troops in a mid-east conflict (Lebanon).

4. Deficit spend to help with a recovery...a very Keynesian economic policy...and not very Republican.

5. He had a Democratic Congress for fair amount of his term. In other words, he was willing to compromise and negotiate rather than play a lame duck.

Did he have some draconian conservative ideals? Well yeah, he was 70 when he took office, already very old...trace back time and you can see why he had those values. Not excusing it, but it is understandable.

And yes, there were some pretty dumb ideas...such as privatizing the National Parks, but usually those type of ideas never made it out...usually.

But lets face facts, if Reagan were alive and running today, he would not receive his parties nomination. I said this in another thread and I'll say it again, his biggest mistake ever was having G H.W. Bush as his VP.

[Ardent15]

7. Why was having G. H. W. Bush as VP a mistake?

Was it because it gave the Bushes more credibility?

[Xolodno]

8. Because....

...it set him up obtain the Presidency and entrench the Bush dynasty's power further. All he had to do was ride Reagan's coat tails of popularity. If I remember correctly, Reagan hardly had to campaign for him (then again, maybe it was on purpose...whose to say).

Second, Bush was in a position to lobby for his buddies (see Rumsfield, etc.) to get key administration roles, remember, Reagan was a Washington outsider and did not have the contacts and full connections to fill every office, thus he had to put in an insider for VP. His choices were Bush, Dole and Ford. Eventually Ford decided he didn't want in and Reagan felt obligated to put in Bush instead of Dole due to the fact he did better in the primaries and Reagan was going to need every Republican to elect a RINO like him. Its my opinion he did not need Bush and should have lobbied Ford more or put on Dole.

Bush would have won in 1992 as well if it wasn't for Ross Perot being a spoiler. But I don't believe it was no accident that his two sons were able to wield considerable power and obtain governorships later on, then eventually, one of them getting the Presidency we all know too well. Their political machine was still viable and with Reagan losing much of his memory due to his disease and being unable to defend his politics from being hijacked, they were able to unabated reshape and down outright LIE about "What would Reagan would do?" into their image.

Not trying to be a Reagan apologetic, but I see way too much on DU as well as Free Republic (but there is no way to argue constructively with them) attributing things to Reagan when it was G.H.W. Bush and his "newspeak" (kudos to those who get that reference) on the "Reagan Revolution". There is a huge reason why the Reagan's DO NOT get along with the neo-conservatives and that does not get brought out enough. Far as I'm concerned the Reagan Revolution and Reaganomics died when the Bush's took power.

[Ardent15]

9. There were many key differences between the two Bushes

The most important was that Bush 41 was a pragmatist, while Bush 43 was an ideologue.

And I'm not sure about Perot. He took a lot of votes from Clinton too.

Bush 41 and Rumsfeld were not buddies, at all. There was a rift between them since Ford's administration, when Rumsfeld as SecDef tried to have Ford oust Bush as CIA director. That explains the fact that Rumsfeld held no position in Bush 41's administration.

Cheney is the man who made sure Rumsfeld was in Bush 43's administration. Rumsfeld was Cheney's mentor in the Nixon and Ford White Houses.

Cheney wasn't too chummy with Bush 41 either. They had very different worldviews.

It was the influence of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Karl Rove-who all worked in the corrupt, unitary executive Nixon White House-that steered the course of the George W. Bush administration.