The REAL Reagan

[Truthmatters]

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010



How might Reagan fare today?
Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.

"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.

The reason was two-fold, Steuerle said. The first was a desire to crack down on the proliferation of tax shelters. But the point of cracking down was to boost tax revenue. That, in turn, could reduce the need to impose other tax increases to combat budget deficits

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama and the Democrats need to raise taxes, no doubt about it.

They should cap all income at $100,000 for everyone and subsidize people to get them up to the $100,000 level. The Pay Czar has the power to do this and I don't know Obama is still farting around the edges

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your article left out that Dems ran Congress and lied to Reagan that they would cut spening if he would agree to their tax increases.

Oopsies.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What people forget about Reagans' two terms is that the Democrat Controlled Congress promised to cut spending but didn't. I'm sure you're shocked by this.

 

[Truthmatters]

Reagan had a veto pen folks

 

[editec]

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010



How might Reagan fare today?
Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.

"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.

The reason was two-fold, Steuerle said. The first was a desire to crack down on the proliferation of tax shelters. But the point of cracking down was to boost tax revenue. That, in turn, could reduce the need to impose other tax increases to combat budget deficits

In another thread I just reminded people that under Reagan's regime, people living on TIPS got audited.

Additionally, under REAGAN social security withholding and medicade taxes went UP for all but the wealthiest Americans.

Contrary to the myth that most Regan worshippers believe, under Reagan taxes went UP for most people.

To his credit, has Reagan not done that social security would be bankrupt today.

Reagan was a lot of things but a POTUS who really reduced government spending or reduced taxes?

That he CLEARLY was not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I cannot follow Progressive logic here at all

Was Reagan evil for cutting taxes or a great man for raising them? Why do Progressive even need to refer to him? You won, remember?

If you want to raise taxes, try to get it done before November.

 

[kwc57]

Reagan had a veto pen folks

You can't veto AFTER the fact. Promises were made, Reagan signed and then the Democrat Congress didn't follow thru on their promises. He couldn't retroactively veto because they didn't keep their promises. I know truth matters to you and those are the truthful facts.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Reagan saved this country from total destruction. We were weak and couldn't even stand up against a handful of students in Iran before Reagan was elected. He saved the US Military and thus the country.

Taxes be damned, it seems you want to attack him for closing loopholes.

Thank God we had Ronnie Reagan......

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's not about Reagan worshiping. I understand you think it's worship because you worship men and not God.

Me thinks the whole point of TMs' disinformation posting is this:

The Stimulus/Porkulus failed and Americans don't want Stimulus/Porkulus II so the dems realize they have to cut taxes to get the economy moving again. They don't want to admit that Reagan or Bush was right to cut taxes (that would be admitting that Socialism/Communism doesn't work) so their plan is twofold.

1. Spread disinformation that the tax cuts were only for the "evil rich".

2. Introduce tax cuts as "targeted tax cuts" to fool people into thinking that those are are somehow "better" than the evil Reagan/Bush tax cuts but are essentially the same. Gore tried this in his failed 2000 Prez campaign.

 

[Yukon.]

Ron Reagan was a half-wit puppet of big business. His strings were pulled for 60 years by GE.

 

[code1211]

Ron Reagan was a half-wit puppet of big business. His strings were pulled for 60 years by GE.

And, in his re-election, missed carrying all 50 states by 0.18% of the vote in Minnesota.

His contemporaries judged him by what happened in their lives. His whole second campaign was based on this question:

"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

Today's Republicans would be well served to base their campaigns on that same question.

 

[boedicca]

What TM continues to neglect, unsurprisingly, is that tax changes have a lagging effect, and we were engages in the final "surge" of the Cold War. The fact that the Soviet Union couldn't match our ability to build up armaments was a factor in their collapse; they gutted their economy in an inevitably futile attempt to keep up.

What the REAL Reagan accomplished was an economic environment favorable to growth and real job creation (net real employment increased by 16M during his terms. The peace dividend reduced defense spending, which had a big impact on reducing the deficit during the 1990s. The problem is out of control entitlements and spending on things in which the government has no business interfering. These programs are not the Reagan legacy.

And one other note: Inflation was 13.6% when Reagan took office. The Volcker tightening of the money supply reduced it to the 4%s - greatly reducing the interest burden on the economy. Obama is desperate to keep the free money flowing to keep interest on the federal debt from skyrocketing, but this is also a ticking time bomb.