Reagan's Top Economist Says GOP Misled the U.S. and Tanked the Economy

Submitted by PRWatch Editors on

Reagan toastLost in the 24/7 news cycle has been a July 31, 2010 opinion-editorial by David Stockman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. Stockman was closely tied to the development of the Reaganomics ideology, but now he points to massive failures by Republicans, while they were in power, to assure that financial accounts were balanced in government, international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the affairs of private businesses and households. Stockman excoriates modern Republicans, and particularly Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for claiming the party's current economic doctrines are rooted in traditional GOP financial philosophy. He points to a list of misguided Republican actions that have led the country to economic disaster: the runaway growth of public debt resulting "not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace ... of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts," the neocon's sky-high inflation of the military budget, the "warfare state," the removal of traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation by the financial sector which led to a "vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector," and the steady sending of jobs and production offshore. Stockman charges that Republicans have strayed so far from their ideological roots that they have "made a mockery of party ideals" and led the country into adopting policies that crippled the economy.

Main Source: 
MarketWatch, August 10, 2010
Topics: 
Right Wing
Banking
Economy
Politics

Comments

snickers413 replied on

Man you nailed it. If I could just get a couple of my family members and a friend to read it. But unless its on Fox they dont believe anything. But thank-you so much for writting it down like that, I'd forgotten some of it and seeing it on paper like that blew my mind.TFL53

Anonymous replied on

Other than the holes in your "conservatives & college" theory, excellent job on summarizing the facts. Facts that I feel certain would make for an evermore excellent read, if coupled with the compelling commentary made by an anonymous poster. "Don't forget however that the son ( John Hinkley Jr.) of G H W Bush's strongest Texas political backer almost killed Reagan which would have made G H W Bush President in 1981.

John's Dad John Hinckly Senior was president of Vanderbilt Oil which was partners with the Bush's and Vanderbilt was being investigated by Reagan's white house for defrauding the government on oil pricing.

(look it up. there is no "theory" this is all fact as was mentioned in the newspapers of the day - search Google news with old newspaper dates between 1980-1983))

Reagan never acted the same after the assassination attempt.

(Surgery and anesthesia and blood loss affect older people greatly and often affects their mind)

G H W Bush's policies became the Policies of Reagan after Reagan was almost killed.

I'll leave it to your speculation whether or not you think Reagan thought about it when making decisions knowing a supporter of his vice president with ties to his Vice President had almost killed him - how would you act? Especially if you knew that VP's dad had been working with the enemies of the united states during world war 2 and had been censored by the US Senate for it and everyone knew they were members of a secretive group with symbolism similar to Nazi death head symbols.

If you had grown up a midwest farm boy and actor how would that knowledge affect your later Presidential policy decisions?"

Anonymous replied on

So if you agree with this article you are saying that Reganomics was correct and worked, but that the George Bushes and the Republican congress messed everything up and then the Democrat Congress and the Democrat President that we have had (and 8 years of President Clinton)failed to fix things by using the proven working system.

I entirely agree with that sentiment.

Becky S replied on

I don't think that's what is being said at all. He's arguing that a lot of our debt is due to tax cuts and not unnecessary spending. He's mocking the Republican idea that debt doesn't seem to matter if it's a result from tax cuts. Even now, when we're trillions in debt, Romney is promising to grant more tax cuts. In contrast, Obama wants to extend the tax cuts to the middle class only, and he wants to end the tax cuts to people who make over $250,000/year.

watou replied on

Obama only intends to restore the higher tax on the part of income in excess of $250,000, not "end the tax cuts to people who make over $250,000," so rich folks still get to keep a big chunk of the "Bush tax cut". Of course, good Democrats are instructed to ignore this continued giveaway to the rich, and pretend Obama doesn't work for his rich donors like Romney works for his.

Anonymous replied on

I think the issue here is over spending. Tax cuts will not make or break our current debt situation. We need to stop spending 200% of our budgets. Think if you make $1000 a month, however every month you spend $2000. It will not matter if you get a 25% raise next year, if you keep spending $2000 a month you will go further and further into debt.

Anonymous replied on

If you read the article you would know that he felt the problem began with Nixon and continued through the Reagan, Bush, and Bush redux administrations.

Anonymous replied on

FMP, if he didn't say it, it wasn't said. However, it would be an incredible leap in consciousness to come to the realization that the republican/democrat facade, is just that, a facade! One needs to look not only closer at real time events, but also at the bigger scheme of what history has produced and the corresponding effects or side effects that follow... Be them under the guise of republican or democrat, the results don't lie. As long as people are cognitively dissonant enough to be divided by artificial parties, perhaps they deserve the circumstances they find themselves in. Perhaps...

Anonymous replied on

If you bother to read the original article, Mr. Stockman points some fingers at both parties. While the essence of this article is true, he doesnt blame it all completely on the Repubs just mostly.

ps. knowing that the person quoted someone, doesnt mean the quote isnt taken somewhat out of context.

thomachuck replied on

Your criticism is very evenhanded. That Stockman blames the "Repubs just mostly" seems enough for me (coming from a Republican insider). I would make the same comment and draw the same conclusion from John W. Dean's "Broken Government". It is the Republicans "just mostly." The span of history gives you a thread of sustained truth. It IS the Republicans just mostly.

Pages