Bacevich: How Reagan helped ruin America

How would McCain/Palin be any different from the current course?

What I see is that McCain is spoiling to confront Russia in order to keep a gas pipeline open in Georgia, while the Bush team knows they're overextended. I see that Palin spent years asking for and receiving more money from Washington than Alaska sent in, making Alaska a state of rugged individualists who live on the money of the presumably less rugged "lower 48" states.

Bacevich's article should be required reading, but it won't be. The libertine right will continue to pretend to be conservative, and nice but inattentive people will continue to be suckered into thinking that this is the best America can do. After all, our leaders are just like us.

Reagan: left us with a $200 bil deficit
Bush 41: left us with a $300 bil deficit
Clinton: left us with a $200 bil surplus
Bush 43: is leaving us with a $480 bil and counting deficit

Who's a fiscal conservative, then??

It's very sad that the same Reagan who showed such amazing backbone in standing up to the Soviet Union was so sorrily supine when it came to standing up to Congress's spending demands.

The point was about Reagan's effect on how Americans think of debt.

Spare me the tired old battle between Liberal Reaganzebub and Conservative Good St. Reagan the Liberator.

"You forget. Clinton's "surplus" solely due to the GOP."

Which is a load of manure. If that were the case then they would have easily maintained it through the years after when they controlled both the Congress and the White House. Instead as soon as they had full control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they went into a tax-cut and spending orgy.

While the GOP controlled both houses of Congress from 2001 through 2006, please show me one, just one bill that President Bush vetoed. One overspending blank check he refused to sign.

Oh, and please show me one bill that the Democrats were able to successfully INCREASE the spending on during that time. Just one...that's all.

I post this pretty often, but maybe this will scare enough people to actually go look. Google US debt. The debt has gone up steadily when we have Republican President in office since Reagan. Direct correlation. When Reagan took office the debt stood at 30% of GDP. It has steadily increased under a Republican president with a brief reprieve under Clinton. Allowing industry insiders to write energy regs gave us Enron. Then a mortgage/credit fiasco. Remember Einstein's definition of insaity.

Steve

All Y'all. You can play the blame the politician you hate game all you want, all it does is make you wrong. Who was it who said a democracy is doomed as soon as the people realize they can vote themselves stuff?. We passed that point. On the whole we, as a people have lost the idea that we owe our country anything and think our country owes us stuff. The promlem is not any politician ast or future because they don't do anything ut give the people what they want. The problem is we the people.

Will,
Exactly. The American people are to blame. Not a politician who was elected as recently as 1980.

It seems the engineer on the train that crashed in Chatsworth last week may have been busy "texting" rather than looking where he was going. How tragic that our obsession with these high tech toys has led us to become more and more out of touch.

"Its the removal of Reagan's core principles that caused this mess."

As Bacevich notes, Reagan's core principle as defined by his actions, not his words, was borrow and spend. Go look at the actual numbers. If that is too much trouble just look at the graphs.

Steve

The problem with Bacevich's take on Reagan is that it is (to use his own words) "characterized by attempts to wish reality away." One cannot reasonably evaluate Reagan's legacy, or judge his actions, without taking into account the exigencies of the Cold War. It's somewhat astonishing that Bacevich, whose expertise is international affairs, bashes Reagan while completely ignoring the existential threat posed by the Soviets, a threat that severely limited Reagan's policy choices.

Bacevich makes a number of points worth thinking about -- the most interesting, to me, is the reconsideration of Carter's malaise speech. But I detect in Bacevich more than a hint of an anti-consumerist ideology masquerading as conservatism.

I call BS on the Republicans here. And also on the Democrats.

As LCS pointed out, it's been under Republican administrations that the deficit has exploded. 20 years of Republican rule out of the last 28 have left us almost bankrupt. It's because of the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes without offsetting cuts in spending that this has happened.

The problem is that standard Democrats won't fix the problem. They won't cut taxes, but they will happily boost spending without raising taxes to pay for it.

We've had the worst of both worlds, then: raising spending AND cutting taxes. That's why, as I said, the federal government will before long run out of foreigners to support our spending sprees.

I want to dig up Paul Tsongas and run him for president again.

The reason McCain is just about the only choice for a deficit hawk such as myself is the same reason standard-issue Elephants dislike him so much: he runs on his willingness to buck his own party. Obama won't do that, according to his record.

"Balance the books, pay as you go, save for a rainy day--Reagan's abrogation of these ancient bits of folk wisdom did as much to recast America's moral constitution as did sex, drugs, and rock and roll."

They're not independent forces; the postwar consumer economy plays a large, if not determinative, role in the social revolution since the 60s. So Mark, as Rod shows us, if you don't have some form of "anti-consumerist ideology," you ain't doin conservatism right.

It's because of the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes without offsetting cuts in spending that this has happened.

That statement makes a massive unproven assumption that mirrors those made by our host, Mr. Dreher.

Namely, that cutting taxes results in lower revenue. I don't think that's true and I don't think that can be proven.

It drives me nuts to hear the news media and government officials (beginning with CBO director David Stockman under the Reagan admininstration) make statements like "we have to fine a way to pay for tax cuts".

As if a tax cut necessarily results in lower revenue. There are plenty of historical examples, such as Kennedy's 1960 income tax cuts that RAISED revenue.

And yet nearly everyone continues to simplistically pretend that "tax cuts = less revenue" and "tax increases = more revenue".

Those statements are not truisms, and have sometimes been proven false. It is possible for a tax increase to result in lower revenue and for a tax cut to result in increased revenue.

I wish people would quit pretending otherwise.

I posted this under the next thread, but it somewhat fits here. A lot of conservatives are too wedded to the concept of complete deregulation because they think it is a non-negotiable point in the conservative belief-set. If you come by your conservatism for faith-based reasons, I'm not so sure this is the case!

It seems pretty clear to me where conservatism got tied into complete deregulation. When we stood against Communism during the Cold War, we threw everything in one basket: Godlessness, the loss of individual freedom and dignity, socialism, the deconstruction of private property. All of this constituted the ideology which is Communism. Conservatives defined themselves as being the exact opposite: faith, individual right and dignity, free markets, the up-by-your-own-bootstraps plan. The pendulum simply swung a little too far, and even after the fall of communism, many conservatives stuck with the received wisdom that conservatism necessarily constituted ALL of these items.

The GOP's ideological opponents after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Democrats, were more for social welfare, so it was easy enough to carry the battle forward to the present day so that the present platform seems an unholy marriage of deregulation, Godliness, patriotism (veering on the blind), individualism, and materialism. Anyone who did not stand on this total platform was not a conservative.

If you start to question a plank or two in this platform, you may get bumped off of it completely. Or at least accused of being "Crunchy." ;) It's high time we built our own damn platform, regardless of how small. A standing platform is better than teetering into the abyss, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: AnotherBeliever | September 15, 2008 10:40 AM

To FBC's excellent point, here in Philadelphia the city wage tax (assessed on all residents regardless of where they work) has been slowly decreasing over the last few years, and the total revenue has remained steady or increased slightly. It is by no means the sole or primary factor, corporate taxation being a big one as well, but there is some pudding in which proof may be found.

It is difficult and dangerous to draw analogies between federal and municipal budgets, it must be stated. However, another proof here is the fact that Philadelphia has been a Democrat machine government for decades, with some egregious problems along the way as well. I don't know what hope that offers, but there it is.

Why doesn't Walker talk about his model's assumptions that the U.S. GDP will not GROW in the future?? I HIGHLY suggest people take him with a grain of salt:

http://boomerang.blogs.com/optimist/2008/08/movie-review-of.html

For all the bashing "Eastern Republicans" take from Reaganites, they were the only locus of principled opposition to this fiscal recklessness.

New Englanders George H.W. Bush, Warren Rudman, Paul Tsongas (disclosure: high school classmate and close friend of my father) and George Mitchell worked very hard at great political risk ("read my lips") to rein in spending. Bush 41 and Mitchell put the restraints on spending that led to the Clinton surpluses, and Bush paid a heavy price for compromising on taxes.

My in-laws are French-speaking Acadians from Aroostook County, Maine, and my father-in-law was a civilian employee at Loring AFB. Right around the time the base closure was announced, I happened to be with my in-laws when they came across George Mitchell at a book signing at the Maine Mall near Portland. There was nobody in the bookstore except us and Senator Mitchell. And did my in-laws give them a piece of their mind! He had turned their world upside down. But the Senator calmly and politely explained how the base closure committee had made the decision and how the Senators had agreed _for the good of the country_ to vote up or down on the package as a whole. I was very impressed by how he handled them and still admire him as a man of integrity today. There's a reason he was chosed to facilitate the talks in Northern Ireland. (I once heard him speak French at a Knights of Columbus hall in Madawaska, Maine. Not bad, I must say.)

As a person with a Southern mother, I always hated this "bash the Yankees sh*t" I get from my real and cultural cousins down South.

Newsflash: Outside of Cambridge, Amherst and Wellsley, we hunt, fish, listen to country music and watch NASCAR just like y'all.

So channel your inner John Adams, and let's bring some balance back to the conservative movement -- both ideologically and regionally.

McCain/Palin '08

Albert
Salamander, google "Laffer curve" and you will find your answer as to how lowering tax rates can increase tax revenue.

And then be aware there's not a single shred of evidence that the 'Laffer curve' exists at all.

Nor any actual logical reason it would. An analogy: People do not demand less work when paid less. They might look for another job, but they do not go 'Well, if you're only paying $12 an hour instead of $14, I'm going to work three less hours this week, so you'll pay me even less!'.

That makes absolutely no sense, but is essentially the theory behind the Laffer curve.

Now, if conservatives wanted to argue they would 'change jobs', aka, move to another country, that might make sense...but that's simply a reason to tighten overseas tax shelters and holding companies, and actually start implementing tariffs. Companies should feel free to move overseas where taxes are less, as long as they realize if they want to sell to Americans, they will be paying American taxes in some way or another.

Dan Berger
The problem is that standard Democrats won't fix the problem. They won't cut taxes, but they will happily boost spending without raising taxes to pay for it.

Obama's going to raise some taxes. On people with incomes over $250,000. And cut taxes on everyone else, but it's still going to raise revenues. I'd actually rather he not cut any, but at least he realizes we need more money coming in.

Meanwhile, McCain's in a crazy world where earmarks are our problem. And he's also apparently in a world where a president could do anything about them...we do not have a line-item veto, so what he's essentially promising is a series of idiotic budget veto wars with Congress so that a random state doesn't get a ninety million dollar road work project, while we ignore billions and trillions of actual spending.

And then be aware there's not a single shred of evidence that the 'Laffer curve' exists at all.

Uh, I cited one -- the Kennedy tax CUTS of 1960, which lowered the top rate of taxation and brought in MORE revenue.

Salamander: it's not a closed loop, i.e., raising the tax rate does not necessarily mean that people will continue doing the same thing and making the same amount of money, while paying a higher rate.

If it was like that, then tax increases *would* automatically raise revenue. (And tax cuts lower it, QED).

But it's not. Human nature figures into the equation and people modify their work and investment behavior based on the returns. For a quick theoretical example, if the tax rate were 1%, and you raised taxes to 5%, then you would very likely see an increase in revenue.

However, consider if the tax rate were 91% and you cut the marginal tax rate to 70%. It would seem that revenue would be reduced, but it wasn't -- in fact this was the rate cut that Pres. Kennedy pushed through Congress and which resulted in a 54% increase in revenue.

Karth nails it.

We're all socialists now -- certainly the GOP is not much different than the Dems. As Pat Buchanan put it, the Republican and Democratic parties are just two different wings on the same bird of prey.

Michael, here is a news story about federal investigators looking into the claim that the Chatsworth train wreck engineer was texting, and thus ran the red signal light:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_re_us/train_collision

They didn't find his cell phone, but there are claims from two teenagers that they received text messages from him right before the wreck. He apparently had communicated with the kids before; they were "train fans" and talked to him at times about his work. The feds will subpoena the cellphone records.

I see people on the road all the time with their cellphones, and many are probably texting too. It should be treated as a felony offense if the car is moving. And yes, it's this very selfishness and childishness which has gotten into this current mess.

> "But I detect in Bacevich more than a hint of an anti-consumerist ideology
> masquerading as conservatism."
>
> That is quite the revealing statement. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. And
> consumerism is conservatism.

Forestwalker, you misunderstand my point. I firmly believe with Russell Kirk that conservatism is the negation of ideology. As Kirk defined it, "Ideology is an attempt to govern all life by political slogans; while American conservatives believe that no mere political formulas can make a people content. ... Thus, American conservatism is a cast of mind and character, not a neat body of political abstractions. Ideology is political fanaticism, an endeavor to rule the world by rigorous abstract dogmata."

What I see in Bracevich is political sloganeering and abstract dogma that ignore inconvenient truths, such as the constraints placed on Reagan by the Cold War. Consumerism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-consumerist ideology.

Ronald Reagan thought that we could have our cake and eat it, too. And the American public bought it hook, line and sinker. No responsibility, just the freedom to "shop til we drop." I firmly believe we are in the precarious position we're in today because of Ronald Reagan and his "materialism is Americanism" mantra. We're way over bounds in our consumeristic lifestyle, and have almost have reached the point of no return.

"Consumerism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-consumerist ideology." - Mark

Is love of country a "political abstraction?" Is preserving tradition? What about personal responsibility? I think your viewpoint is a bit simplistic. Bacevich is not being fanatical or trying to "rule the world by rigorous abstract dogmata."

Could we say: "Moral relativism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-moral relativism."

Or how about: "Socialism is not conservatism, but neither is anti-socialism." ?