Comments on: Paul Ryan’s revolution would finish Reagan’s

By: JackMack

JackMack — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:42:07 +0000

Purely partisan foolishness. To suggest that Ryan’s plan somehow restores “free markets” is a spectacular insult to the intelligence of anyone with enough education to be barely literate and enough sense to look one level deeper than the TMZ headline of the day.

Ryan’s plan cements the corporate cronyism that has driven our economy into the turf. What’s needed is a REAL return to free markets, and this plan doesn’t even scratch that surface.

Pethokoukis, you’re nothing more than a partisan shill. My dog could eat an inkjet cartridge and defecate a better-reasoned column than this.

By: dcrimso

dcrimso — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:10:29 +0000

Ryan’s plan is magical fairy dust. Any projections more than two years old are bogus. Yhr unemployment of 2.8% is a lie. And Raygun took money from the young and gave it to old people, while Ryan wants to the opposite. Preety bad article James, you usually do better.

By: Chibiabos

Chibiabos — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:46:53 +0000

This is hilarious! Is it April 1 still?

Reagan’s economic hacks destroyed both the budget and the American economy. The deficit skyrocketted, unemployment, rates of homelessness and poverty also increased while wealth concentrated. Bush I couldn’t get re-elected because none of his hacks worked to fix anything (even after breaking his ‘no new taxes’ campaign chant).

The only reason the economy rose under Dubya was because of the giant Ponzi scheme that was home mortgages allowed lenders to report massive profits, even though those profits relied on very unsound lending practices that had been illegal until they were deregulated; this Ponzi scheme was bound to rise fast and crash hard because it was unsustainable, and that is exactly what happened.

The country cannot afford another trickle down failure. It didn’t work under Reagan, it didn’t work under Dubya. What kind of reporter or politician would keep trying the same thing and expect different results?

By: mustafaspeaks

mustafaspeaks — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 06:49:27 +0000

Wasn’t the last “American Century” bloody and repressive enough?—please, not another one! Just pour lime on its rotting culture and air out the planet.

By: jtfane

jtfane — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:43:54 +0000

@BillyBarty
I must admit that I’m impressed at your efforts and knowledge of history. As far as content, well, other than getting many of the critical “facts” wrong and making comically oversimplified assertions of cause and effect, everything else looks ok to me.
“Ronald Reagan worked with congress to lower the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% (phased in over 1981 thru 1983) and then from 50% to 28% (1986 tax reform act) while closing loopholes. The economy and tax revenue nearly doubled (in nominal terms), unemployment was cut in half, and the inflation rate was more than halved from 1982 thru 1989.”
Well the tax code changes sound right but I’m not sure where you’re getting your data for the resultant claims.
The economy “nearly doubled” from 1982 thru 1989? By whose numbers? According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov) U.S. GDP was $3.25T in 1982 and $5.48T in 1989 and according to my calculations that’s a 67% increase. I’d say “nearly doubled” is more than a bit of a stretch for a 67% increase. Increased by more than two thirds would’ve been good, even nearly 70% would be fine but calling a 67% increase nearly doubled is off to a pretty bad start. Unfortunately, it only gets worse from there. Let’s take a look at tax revenue. According to the OMB total tax revenues in 1982 were $618B and in 1989 they were $991B. Some fairly simple math tells us that’s a 60% increase. That’s an interesting definition of nearly doubled. Let’s take a closer look at tax revenue. Revenue from individual income taxes (where the cuts you mentioned occurred) was $298B in ’82 and $446B in ’89 for a 50% increase, half way to doubling anyway. But wait, it gets even worse. The greatest increases in revenue (percentage wise) during that period actually came from corporate and social insurance taxes which increased by 110% and 78% respectively. Only problem (for Reaganomics, that is) is that these increases in revenue came along with increases in the effective tax rate (the only realistic way to measure the ludicrously complex taxes in the U.S.) in both categories. Effective corporate rates increased from 1.8% to 2.3% and effective social insurance rates went from 7.5% to 8.1%, it’s also interesting to note that both of these are typically viewed as regressive taxes.
And now on to unemployment. Unemployment was 9.7% in ’83 and 5.5% in ’89 for a 45% reduction. “Cut in half”? well, not quite. Am I being a little picky about that measly 5% additional reduction needed to get the full 50% to be technically “cut in half”? Well, look at it this way: half of 9.7% is 4.85%, I’m guessing that most people would consider 4.85% unemployment significantly better than 5.5%. We didn’t see 4.85% unemployment until ’97, after those top marginal tax rates had been increased to 39.6% (just figured I’d throw in some of my own cause and effect voodoo to demonstrate how easy it is).
According to my numbers (actually, they’re the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ numbers) CPI-U inflation was 3.7% in ’82 and 4.6% in ’89. I have no idea how that translates to “more than halved” since it actually increased by 0.9%. Keep that up and you’ll probably be getting a job offer from the folks at the Cato institute, or maybe that’s where you’re getting your figures from to begin with.
I guess you just overlooked one number, you know the one that everyone’s talking about these days. In 1982 the national debt stood at $1.14T and by ’89 it was $2.86T. Now there’s something that actually doubled – and then some. That’s actually a 151% increase, a new 8 year record since before WWII, but one that the proponents of Reaganomics always seem to overlook. To put this in a little better perspective the debt was 32% of GDP in ’81 when Reagan took office, the lowest it had been since before WWII after which it skyrocketed to over 120% of GDP to support the war effort. In Reagan’s last year in office the debt had risen to 51% of GDP, well on it’s way to the 60% level that many economists consider dangerous. It would actually surpass 60% in just two years. I could go on, but do I really need to? Suffice it to say that it’s much easier to believe in fantasy ideologies if you create fantasy facts to support them. In closing, I could really care less about Democrats or Republicans, I think they’ve both managed to do pretty lousy jobs, but the real travesty here is the disservice Reuters does to it’s readers by publishing Pethokoukis’ pathetic partisan dribble. I can get this trash on Fox, try journalism for a change.

By: BillyBarty

BillyBarty — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:20:53 +0000

Everyone mocking the statement “Paul Ryan’s revolution would finish Reagan’s” with swipes at Reaganomics, here’s how I remember things going. Please correct me where I am wrong and show me the evidence for the “Reaganomic theory collapse”….. Ronald Reagan worked with congress to lower the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% (phased in over 1981 thru 1983) and then from 50% to 28% (1986 tax reform act) while closing loopholes. The economy and tax revenue nearly doubled (in nominal terms), unemployment was cut in half, and the inflation rate was more than halved from 1982 thru 1989. Then Bush I and Clinton fumbled around and raised taxes. Clinton’s finest hour came in 1993 (as well as Al Gore’s – remember when he debated Perot on Larry King? Gore absolutely smoked Perot.) was the passage of NAFTA – in effect a tax cut (in the form of cooperative tariff reductions). Nonetheless – the economy receded (briefly) and then limped along from 1990 thru most of Clinton’s first 2 years. Things only returned to the 1982 thru 1989 trend in 1994 when Hillarycare was killed, increased activity in the export economy began to kick in, and Republicans took control of congress (providing a vehicle for sitting on Clinton for the remaining six years of his presidency). Clinton subsequently signed welfare reform, went along with a capital gains tax cut, reappointed Alan Greenspan (again), and worked with House Republicans to bring some sanity to the budget. The economy boomed pretty much from the point where Hillarycare looked dead all the way through 2000. Next came the dot-com bust. Bush II got his first round of (modest) tax cuts in the first half of 2001 while Democrats screamed that he was “talking down the economy” to build support. Of course, it turned out Bush II was correct and the economy was indeed weak. Then came 9/11 and chaos pretty much erupted in the economy for a few weeks. The net effect of the dot-com bust, 9/11, and the insufficient 2001 tax cuts for the economy was that it again receded (ever so briefly) and then limped along thru 2002. Then came a slightly strengthened Republican House majority and a Senate swing back to Republican control and Bush II got the 2003 (more growth inducing) tax cuts through congress – further marginal income tax rate reductions, capital gains tax cut, and a dividends tax cut. The economy grew solidly from 2003 thru most of 2007 and even went on a record string of consecutive months of job creation – this against the back-drop of two (mismanaged) wars, an ill-advised expansion of Medicare, and Hurricane Katrina. Circa 2007, congress and the Bush administration failed (or failed to convince the newly Democratic congress) to get a handle on Fannie and Freddie and the whole sub-prime mortgage mess in time to forestall the debacle of 2008. So there was a pretty good string of prosperity from about 1982 thru 2007 bookended by calamitous recessions – neither of which can credibly be hung on Supply Side Economics. Furthermore, think of all the momentous events that happened during this period – massive defense build-up, collapse of the Soviet Union and communism, the Iran-Contra scandal, the 1987 stock market crash, the savings and loan debacle, the Persian Gulf War, Hurricane Andrew, the specter (and defeat) of Hillarycare, an impeached president, war in the Balkans, a contested presidential election, the dot-com bust, 9/11, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, the Senate changing hands 5 times (1986, 1994, 2001, 2002, 2006), the House changing hands twice (1994, 2006). Through all this, the economy managed to give us the rise of the personal computer; transitions from LP to CD and VHS to DVD to Blu-ray, from expensive analog cell/car-phones to cheap digital hand-held smart-phones, from dial-in computer bulletin boards to high-speed wireless internet access, from analog tube TV to digital, flat screen HDTV; and plenty of people prosperous enough to partake of all of this. All of this happened during a period of relatively low tax rates. So again I ask you… Where is the failure due to Reaganomics?

By: Actually4

Actually4 — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:17:55 +0000

Finish Reagan’s what? Reagan ended his terms with higher spending, higher taxes, and bigger government. He helped corporations move offshore and get a tax deduction for do it. He shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. He allowed the wealthy to increase their wealth at the expense of everyone else. Is that what Ryan is attempting to do? All we have to do is look at 1860 to1930 history to see how that worked out for everyone but the corporations, trusts, and robber barons that benefited from the laissez faire (libertarian) economics. The Supreme Court, millionaire Senators and Congressmen, and conservative Republican Presidents presided over millions who lost their farms to agri-business corporations, allowed children to work in factories (kids are cheap and fast), and ignored criminal behavior by the wealthy in the name of American business. I really look forward to a violent revolution when Ryan’s proposals end up decimating American’s lifestyle.

By: amj

amj — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:01:52 +0000

Can you explain why the market based healthcare system is not working today? How does this so called Ryan Plan change that besides forcing more customers on this inefficient and high cost system? Your writeup is devoid of any critical analysis of the plan. Have checked the record of past Heritage projections? If you want to be taken seriously do some serious work and not propagate fake solutions. Ryan is presenting no serious plan. Anybody can solve the fiscal issues with irresponsible solutions based on cooked up numbers just to make a political point. Did you look at the alternative of eliminating the bush tax cuts, reforming the tax code to eliminate the vast corporate welfare and the agricultural subsidies that have long outlived their usefulness. You have a platform that goes with a moral responsibility to be intellectually honest and not just take Ryan’s lies and present them as a fact based plan. It is not. The market based health insurance industry has failed miserably to offer the american people a dependable health care system. There is nothing your review of the Ryan plan will address the industry’s shortcomings. The reason Medicare was created is that the industry fails to offer any solutions for older people. Today young will be also be old and the industry will treat them just as bad and Ryan provides no solution other than shifting cost to Seniors and the States. Is that a solution? Any idiot can suggest that!

By: NobleKin

NobleKin — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:44:16 +0000

Not all Left…

I do see the merits of lowering tax on corporations, provided American companies agree to move their so-called “headquarters” back to the US and pay their fair share. No loopholes or dodges.

That means you GE, Et al.

I don’t see the merits of lowering tax on the wealthiest wage earners. You can raise their tax 10-20% and it would have little impact on their lifestyles.

By: NobleKin

NobleKin — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:37:59 +0000

Budget is unsustainable. No arguement.

Undertaxation on wealthy, part of the budget shortfalls.

Past taxation at lower levels on wealthy had no proven impact on economic growth. In both instances where we witnessed the Reaganomic theory collapse in the late ’80s and early ’90s and again in ’02-the present, giveing the wealthy the enormous tax breaks has done little to stimulate sustained economic growth.

Reagan lowered taxes and increased government spending. Between he and Bush I they tripled the Deficit. This spending stimulated the economy. Much of it was on hardware investments in the military. This had a stimulative effect, but was also not sustainable.

And now you want Ryan’s redux of Reaganomics to be believed?

Disaster of the last few years economically in part the result of irresponsible regulatory policies which were supported based on the free market principles absent the guiding hand did what to the financial sector? Housing sector?

This collapse presented the additional shortfalls due to people out of work and not earning taxable income.

Privatize social security? So that pension holders in a private system can see their dollars flushed down the toilet with the next economic collapse?

Privatize Medicare so it can go into the hands of the people who are already stealing the American people blind with a ‘free market’ system rigged to ensure they control pricing and services? Health Insurance by its nature is a socialized endeavor. It is not more efficient than the government option as with the private model vast sums of “healthcare dollars” invested as premiums go to share holders as dividends, to CEO’s as inflated salaries and bonuses, and staffers who exist for the sole purpose of denying coverage, not providing care.

You can drink the Reaganomic Kool-aide if you want, but most of us remember it didn’t do anything more than shink the middle class and increase the number of people below the poverty line.

You want a better plan? Source from the Clinton years. Start with PAYGO and work forward.