In the second of this series, we look today at some past errors, who the opposition is, and what they recommend.
Let’s take a brief historical review: one glance in the rearview mirror shows us the egregious example of Reaganomics, a keystone of the Reagan Administration – and its strong goals towards supply side economics.
While it had laudable goals: tax cuts, increased interest rates, expansion of production and increased incentives to work; plus a decrease from the country’s dependency on the aggregate to production, to name but a few, the unintended effect of the tax cuts led to a deficit of $150 to $200 billion per year, with the increased interest rates leading to US dependency on foreign funds, as we see all too clearly now.
Not to be outshone in legislative missteps, the Democrats under the Carter administration private business was increasingly offered decreased government deregulation.
And, it seems no one can let the banks off the hook for offering not only decreased regulations for home loans – including the infamous NINJA loans – no income, no job applications, and ballooning the rate of home foreclosure, particularly in poor and minority neighborhoods.
The missing link? Those potential homeowners that actually believed that this was a viable path to home ownership.
But, lest we forget – the foreclosures were part of a larger plan so that investors could speculate on bundled mortgages, and the rate of foreclosure – in short a new, nearly blind financial instrument called derivatives – which quickly led to a toppled market.
A quick return to the past shows that the Republicans seem opposed to any type of assistance programs, means tested, or otherwise. They poured out a torrent of abuse when FDR created Social Security, but nonetheless gleefully cashed their checks, and still continue to do so.
They nursed that grudge all the way to the Johnson administration when Medicare and Medicaid were created, turned the rhetoric up and, hey, no surprise here, screamed that it was socialized medicine.
Now, the GOP is gunning for Medicare and Medicaid, convinced that shredding these programs will put us in the black, despite the fact that a sizeable majority of their membership are well over 65 years old.
Also on the burner is Social Security which has managed to take care of older Americans, keeping many of them from penury; and has also helped the disabled.
The logic in these attacks baffles us; and even more baffling is the unanswered question: if these programs are reduced, or cut, what will replace them to help those in need?
The GOP candidates
Most economists agree that the US is in the midst of a structural deficit – a situation that requires strong legislative programs, and tax rates, not economic activities; in short, any changes in structural budget deficits require legislative, not changes in government expenditures: “Have a tax policy in place that doesn’t put undo burden on the job creators.” Oh, gosh, now we’ve heard this before – yet an overwhelming majority of Americans – over 60% have stated that they are in favor of taxing the wealthy, and “trickle down” has become a comic metaphor for a failed policy of Ronald Regan.
Perry also advocates for not ‘spending all the money.” Oh, my, there he goes again!
Meanwhile Mrs. Bachmann wants to cut spending by 25% and then kill the Obama health plan with a repeal beal she’s nicknamed as “Mother.” And of course, you knew this was coming: keep all of the Bush era tax cuts permanent.
Well, she at least has deviated from giving Satanic meanings and divine retribution to natural disasters and LGBT people; perhaps she was looking over a certain candidate from Delaware’s shoulders as she compiled her playbook?