Did we learn nothing from the Kansas' Republican Party disaster that was their tax cuts for the already-wealthy and corporations so very recently?
Showing posts with label tax cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax cuts. Show all posts
Friday, September 29, 2017
Trump's and the Republicans' Tax Cuts for the Nation?
Did we learn nothing from the Kansas' Republican Party disaster that was their tax cuts for the already-wealthy and corporations so very recently?
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Country Club Plaza Blight??
Here we go again.
Yet another company on the Country Club Plaza wants tax breaks. This time, it's a huge luxury hotel corporation, The Intercontinental, and they're claiming that their Intercontinental on our Plaza--you know, the old Alameda, is suffering from "blight."
InterContinental, a premier KC hotel,
seeks 'blight' designation
What chutzpah. What corporate chutzpah. What nerve.
Intercontinental should break the news to their customers, that the hotel where they're staying suffers from "blight."
As an example, check out how the Intercontinental Hotel chain describes their local hotel, on their website.
LANDMARK ELEGANCE AT KANSAS CITY’S BEST ADDRESS
It is today and always has been presented as a luxury hotel, first. Second, they've updated and redecorated the hotel since taking over from the Alameda. And the rooms start at $200 per night. How much blight can they suffer at those rates?
Check this out. As further proof. They list themselves on at least a few sites on the internet as a Five Star Hotel, too.
The chain lists themselves on their official website (see below) as having $1,803,000 last year in "group revenue" with an operating profit of $680 million.
This is just like when the law firm, some years ago, wanted to take over an apartment building on the Plaza. They asked for tax breaks, too. Fortunately, the people of Kansas City rose up, made their voice heard and it was struck down. The site is now an ongoing, successful hotel.
That's what needs to happen here, now, on this, again. That is, the citizens of Kansas City need to rise up, speak up and tell Intercontinental "HELL NO" on this whole idea and proposal.
They want to be a top of the food chain, luxury hotel? Fine. Do it.
They just shouldn't do it on the backs of the citizens of Kansas City.
Links: InterContinental® Hotels - Official Site
Links: InterContinental® Hotels - Official Site
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
On Those Kansas', Republican Tax Cuts
Seth Myers gets it right on Kansas' Republican tax cuts and the wider implications for possible our national, fiscal future, given what Republican candidates for the presidency are still proposing.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Governor Brownback and Kansas Republicans Keep Making Things Worse
Everyone knows, a few years ago, in Kansas, very Republican Governor Sam and all his Republican, Right Wing cohorts at the Topeka State Capitol slashed taxes on the already-wealthy and corporations in that state and raised them on the working-, middle- and lower-classes.
Terrific.
We all also know that, since those actions were put in place, Kansas' credit rating has been downgraded and income for the state has dropped horribly, leading to cuts in state budgets, including, tragically, the schools.
Bad and getting worse.
Now, these same rocket scientists in Topeka want and need to raise money for the state, for those budgets, rather naturally, so what do they do?
Why, raise taxes on purchases, of course.
And who does that hurt most, precisely? Look no further than Dave Helling and the Kansas City Star today for the answer:
Analysis: Kansas workers with low to moderate incomes will feel the greatest pain from tax increases
The stupid, it burns.
A little from the article:
Every Kansan will feel the sting of the budget and accompanying tax hikes passed at the end of the state Legislature’s marathon 2015 session. Homeowners, workers, businesses, smokers — all will pay more.
But no group, experts believe, gets hurt more than the state’s low- and moderate-income workers, those earning between $30,000 and $50,000 a year.
They now face higher taxes on essential purchases without most of the subsidies that protect poorer Kansans from government’s bite.
Low-income workers, unlike those with significantly higher earnings, must watch their pennies carefully to pay for other essentials such as transportation and housing. Soon, more of those pennies — which quickly grow to dollars — will be on their way to Topeka.
“There’s only so much you can squeeze from the lowest end of the scale,” said Annie McKay, executive director of the Kansas Center for Economic Growth. She called the tax bill deeply disappointing.
“We’ve moved up the food chain,” she said. “This looks to pick the pockets of lower- and middle-income Kansans.”
Kansas will soon collect 6.5 cents on every dollar that residents pay for food. That’s among the highest sales tax rates on food in the country.
And then there's this irony and screw-up for the Kansas "small government", "low tax" chuckleheads in Topeka:
Some lawmakers in the Kansas City area now think shoppers will take their grocery business to Missouri, where food sales taxes are dramatically lower. At $200 a week, a Kansas grocery shopper can save almost $550 a year in sales taxes just by crossing the state line.
For someone earning $600 a week, those savings are probably critical.
And then it gets worse here, with this tax increase, too:
The tax hit for low- and moderate-income Kansans isn’t limited to food purchases.
That higher sales tax will now be embedded in clothing purchases, cars, nonprescription medicines and more, costing taxpayers cash. Businesses might raise their prices to cover their own higher taxes. An increase in the cigarette tax will now cost a pack-a-day Kansas smoker $471 a year. (The Missouri tax of 17 cents a pack translates to $62.)
And the new tax bill contains other hikes, unrelated to purchases, that will pinch the state’s residents. The package reduces the state deductibility of local property taxes and mortgage interest, driving up most Kansans’ income tax payments. The 2012 income tax rate cuts — which studies have shown actually increased tax liabilities for poor and low-income residents — have been locked in place, at least for the time being.
“What we’re going to see in the coming years is a growing number of working poor in Kansas, who don’t have access to support but don’t have enough to make ends meet,” McKay said.
If there's any silver lining to all these dark clouds, it's this:
Yet next year’s potential for a Kansas crisis — and the real one this year — has dampened enthusiasm for serious tax cuts in most other states. Several Republican governors have cited the Kansas struggle in scaling back their own tax reduction plans this year.
Yet next year’s potential for a Kansas crisis — and the real one this year — has dampened enthusiasm for serious tax cuts in most other states. Several Republican governors have cited the Kansas struggle in scaling back their own tax reduction plans this year.
Even most Republican presidential candidates have shied away from broad, across-the-board tax cut plans. The anti-tax fervor that has dominated the GOP for decades has given way, at least in part, to targeted tax reduction plans that might do less damage to the government’s revenue stream.
But let it never be said these Right Wing, extremist Republicans learn anything. At least, if they do learn, it's none too quickly:
Yet the anti-tax sentiment in the modern Republican Party remains strong, Kansas notwithstanding.
“There are going to be different kinds of tax cuts offered,” said Richard Skinner, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins and George Washington universities. “But I think all the Republican candidates will offer some sort of major tax cut.”
Lots of us who know and like Kansans and want good things for them, hope the time will have finally come in our friend's and family member's state for them to finally, finally vote these knuckleheads and greedheads out of office.
“There are going to be different kinds of tax cuts offered,” said Richard Skinner, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins and George Washington universities. “But I think all the Republican candidates will offer some sort of major tax cut.”
Lots of us who know and like Kansans and want good things for them, hope the time will have finally come in our friend's and family member's state for them to finally, finally vote these knuckleheads and greedheads out of office.
It can't happen soon enough.
Link to another great article on the mess that is Kansas of late, here: Kansas Republicans Are Slaves To A Monster Of Their Own Making
And check out this headline, today, on Kansas, too, from The New York Times:
Kansas: College Funding Is at Risk Without Tax Increase, Governor Says
I love that headline. Governor Brownback and his Republican Party associates wrecked the state's budgets with their "trickle down", tax the middle class and poor strategies and now are saying, "Give us our tax increases or the schools get it."
Nearly unbelievable.
And check out this headline, today, on Kansas, too, from The New York Times:
Kansas: College Funding Is at Risk Without Tax Increase, Governor Says
I love that headline. Governor Brownback and his Republican Party associates wrecked the state's budgets with their "trickle down", tax the middle class and poor strategies and now are saying, "Give us our tax increases or the schools get it."
Nearly unbelievable.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Quote of the Day -- On Trickle Down Tax Cuts
Thursday, April 11, 2013
President Obama's budget proposal
Click on picture for easier viewing, as ever.
The first one alone nearly makes it worthwhile, singularly.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Here's Reaganomics and "trickle-down economics" for you
Ladies and gentlemen, the results of "Reaganomics" and the "job creators":
Could we change, now, now that we've gotten these proven results? Please?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Quote of the day
"Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was "crazy"—that's a quote—that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan" -- President Obama, today.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Even the Wall Street Journal has had it with the Republican leaders
Friday, September 23, 2011
To whom do these tax policies seem fair?
"Right now, someone who earns $106,800 pays the same amount of money into Social Security as billionaires like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That is because today, all income above $106,800 is exempt from the Social Security tax. As a result, 94% of Americans pay Social Security tax on all of their income, but the wealthiest 6% do not." --Senator Bernie Sanders (Indep., VT) Links: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/23/1019508/-Why-do-Republicans-hate-Social-Security; http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Jefferson City, giving away the tax base
I've been railing here about cities and states giving away tax breaks to companies and corporations so they would hopefully relocate in their areas and what does Jefferson City do, instead? Why they're giving yet MORE tax breaks to them. From the news today: Analysis: Mo. proposal revamps business incentives JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - "A proposed overhaul of Missouri's business incentives could make it easier for companies to qualify for tax breaks. Some also could qualify for more money, and for a few it could be like winning the lottery, because they could choose between cash upfront or a stream of payments in the coming years." So guess what, folks? You and I are going to be spending yet more of our incomes on the tax base and schools and infrastructure because that money has to come from SOMEWHERE and apparently our representatives have been bought one more time by the corporations, their lobbyists and money. You and I have been sold down the river one more time. At what point are we going to get "campaign contributions" (bribes) out of our political system and campaigns? It isn't going to happen unless and until we all demand it, you know. Link: http://www.komu.com/news/analysis-mo-proposal-revamps-business-incentives/
Friday, September 9, 2011
Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) own constituents want him to do something about jobs
He better get on board with President Obama on this jobs bill.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
President Obama, giving in AGAIN?
Man, I hope this isn't true but it's being reported that President Obama's jobs plan he's going to introduce Thursday night has been leaked. It's over at Daily Kos: "Our local paper here, the Oregonion, is reporting some highlights of President Obama's "bold" new plan to create jobs to reinvigorate the economy as well as his own re-election campaign, according to anonymous administration officials.
According to the administration officials, the President deliberated with his key advisers and fundraisers before settling on a plan.
After extensive negotiations between his cabinet members, the President agreed to accept some bipartisan proposals like a repatriation tax holiday for corporations, a stealth-bailout for major banks, a payroll tax cut, and a drastic cut in regulations. All are supported by a majority of corporate lobbyists & campaign donors who insist that this will help rebuild "business confidence", which will eventually lead to more jobs." As I said, I hope this isn't true. Look at that short list, above. A "repatriation tax holiday for corporations", if you'll look it up, is just another tax giveaway for and to corporations and will lead to no new jobs. Another "bailout for major banks"? Are you freaking kidding me? A "payroll tax cut" is tax relief, sure, and probably for the middle class and that's good but it absolutely won't create jobs. Finally, a "drastic cut in regulations." Right. So, what? They can pollute more? And that will create jobs how? Dear God, I hope this isn't true. And, worse case scenario, if it is true, I hope there's other, good stuff in his plan. Here's hoping. Closing note: I think the post may be only humor as the link to the Oregonian is to The Onion, instead. Link to original story: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/06/1013775/-Obama-Jobs-Plan-Leaked?via=siderecent
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Republican leaders fighting to keep tax cuts for keeping manufacturing offshore
One of the things the Republican leaders are fighting for right now in Washington for their corporate overlords, in the budget negotiations, is for corporations to keep tax incentives to take and keep manufacturing offshore. Yeah. Seriously. If President Obama and the Democrats take this away they call it "increasing taxes." It's crazy. Truly insane. If you totally ignored that we need the revenue, how about the fact that we need and want the jobs back here in the States, back here at home? Shouldn't that resonate with them? To go along with this (I've written on this before), there is a story out today on The Daily Ticker blog, reinforcing this: "America needs to get back to the basics of creating things of value and there is no better time than now, says Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of General Motors. 'There is a dawning awakening on the part of most Americans that we cannot maintain the wealth of the nation by being bond traders [and] lawyers,' he tells Aaron in the accompanying interview. 'At some point the country has to get back to work and create wealth through mining, agriculture or manufacturing.'" We need to ramp up and keep up pressure on Congress--and right now--to take away tax credits that take and keep manufacturing offshore. Nothing else makes sense. Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/bring-home-no-excuse-not-manufacuture-u-bob-130200387.html#more-id
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Quote of the day
"We don't need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives." --Former President, Texan and long time supporter of "Big Oil", George W. Bush.
And yet...
And yet...
Big Oil makes the case for tax breaks
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Predictions on gasoline this year
My first prediction is that gasoline here in the area--the midwest, overall--will hit at least $4.00 per gallon this Summer--likely go a bit higher than that--and stay there most of the 3 months. It will stay there all Summer unless, that is, the economy really grinds to a halt because of it. Then it will come back just under 4 bucks a gallon.
My second prediction is that Exxon Mobil and all the oil companies will once again make all time, record-breaking profits, even for themselves, surpassing the last time this happened which were, at that time, record-breaking profits.
Final prediction---like the idiots we are, we STILL won't take away the tax breaks Congress gave them so long ago.
We really aren't that bright, collectively, are we?
Links: Boehner rejects Dems' request for vote to end subsidies for Big Oil
Exxon Mobil profit soars along with gas prices
Oil edges higher; natural gas rallies nearly 4%
Rising Gas Prices: Obama Re-Tries Cutting Oil Subsidies; Kucinich ...
Gas Prices Increase to $3.88
Gas Price Spikes
My second prediction is that Exxon Mobil and all the oil companies will once again make all time, record-breaking profits, even for themselves, surpassing the last time this happened which were, at that time, record-breaking profits.
Final prediction---like the idiots we are, we STILL won't take away the tax breaks Congress gave them so long ago.
We really aren't that bright, collectively, are we?
Links: Boehner rejects Dems' request for vote to end subsidies for Big Oil
Exxon Mobil profit soars along with gas prices
Oil edges higher; natural gas rallies nearly 4%
Rising Gas Prices: Obama Re-Tries Cutting Oil Subsidies; Kucinich ...
Gas Prices Increase to $3.88
Gas Price Spikes
Friday, March 18, 2011
This will have the news tongues wagging all weekend
CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion
WASHINGTON – A new assessment of President Barack Obama's budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.
The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years — an average of almost $1 trillion a year.
Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.
Now, all that said, it is a matter of optimism and hope vs. pessimism and skepticism, it could be said:
The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.
To repeat, maybe giving the $700 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in the country (thanks, Republicans!) wasn't such a good idea.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The House vote on de-funding NPR today
Congress is rather famously--infamously, to me and a lot of us--today voting on whether to de-fund NPR (originally National Public Radio).
This drives me nearly crazy.
We fund churches and religions and all kinds of goofy institutions that merely call themselves "church", by way of insane tax breaks, then we give federal tax dollars to some nonsensical things called "faith-based institutions" (thanks very much, Dubya) but we want to de-fund this huge source of more logical, calm, clear-minded, rational news gatherers that serve this country so bloody well?
And for that matter, what they do for the arts and so, for all Americans, shouldn't be overlooked, either.
Today, on that very same NPR, there was a story about American soldiers who aren't getting Purple Heart medals even though they've gotten concussions from front-line wars and explosions. The military is denying them.
If NPR weren't around, if this funding goes away, who is going to report on this kind of thing? This information wouldn't exist but for NPR and the CPB and this federal funding.
There's another report out right now by and from NPR on "How Offshore Tax Havens Save Corporations Billions". And you know what? As citizens of this country, we need to know this stuff. Does anyone think ABC, NBC, CBS or--laughably--Fox "News" is going to report on such a thing?
Hell no they wouldn't.
So you and I wouldn't know how this part of our tax laws and government is working. Or, rather, not working, in this case.
Sure, corporate Amerika hates this high-brow information source because they don't want the likes of Bill Moyers and his reporting or the new "Need to Know" television program. The less we know about corporations and what corporations do within our government and so, to us and the country, the happier the corporations are and the more tax breaks and cozy deals they get from their pals inside the government, whom they buy with "campaign contributions."
No NPR? What's next? No Corporation for Public Broadcasting? No PBS?
Allow me to post some quotes here:
Jefferson, Education and the Franchise, by Professor Thomas Jewett
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)
From that same Professor Thomas Jewett, writing in Jefferson, Education and the Franchise:
The preparation of the voter so that he might express his opinion by means of the ballot, thus insuring political liberty, was one of the main goals of Jefferson's plan for education which asserted four basic principles:
Here, conversely, is but one example why corporations and their Republican lackeys don't want you and I to have the CPB, PBS, NPR or knowledge and information about what they're doing to, with and in our government:
"You can only get really unpopular decisions through if the electorate is convinced of the value of the environment. That's what natural history programmes should be for." --David Attenborough
The more we know and so, the more we vote and act, regardless of the topic, the less the corporations can get away with, ladies and gentlemen.
And they'll be only too happy to do just that--get away with all they can.
Keeping you and I ignorant suits them very nicely, thank you very much.
Links: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/npr-funding-vote_n_837014.html
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2313338
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/17/134619750/how-offshore-tax-havens-save-companies-billions?ft=1&f=1001
Click here to access C-SPAN's live video stream.
This drives me nearly crazy.
We fund churches and religions and all kinds of goofy institutions that merely call themselves "church", by way of insane tax breaks, then we give federal tax dollars to some nonsensical things called "faith-based institutions" (thanks very much, Dubya) but we want to de-fund this huge source of more logical, calm, clear-minded, rational news gatherers that serve this country so bloody well?
And for that matter, what they do for the arts and so, for all Americans, shouldn't be overlooked, either.
Today, on that very same NPR, there was a story about American soldiers who aren't getting Purple Heart medals even though they've gotten concussions from front-line wars and explosions. The military is denying them.
If NPR weren't around, if this funding goes away, who is going to report on this kind of thing? This information wouldn't exist but for NPR and the CPB and this federal funding.
There's another report out right now by and from NPR on "How Offshore Tax Havens Save Corporations Billions". And you know what? As citizens of this country, we need to know this stuff. Does anyone think ABC, NBC, CBS or--laughably--Fox "News" is going to report on such a thing?
Hell no they wouldn't.
So you and I wouldn't know how this part of our tax laws and government is working. Or, rather, not working, in this case.
Sure, corporate Amerika hates this high-brow information source because they don't want the likes of Bill Moyers and his reporting or the new "Need to Know" television program. The less we know about corporations and what corporations do within our government and so, to us and the country, the happier the corporations are and the more tax breaks and cozy deals they get from their pals inside the government, whom they buy with "campaign contributions."
No NPR? What's next? No Corporation for Public Broadcasting? No PBS?
Allow me to post some quotes here:
Jefferson, Education and the Franchise, by Professor Thomas Jewett
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)
From that same Professor Thomas Jewett, writing in Jefferson, Education and the Franchise:
The preparation of the voter so that he might express his opinion by means of the ballot, thus insuring political liberty, was one of the main goals of Jefferson's plan for education which asserted four basic principles:
- "that democracy cannot long exist without enlightenment.
- that it cannot function without wise and honest officials.
- that talent and virtue, needed in a free society, should be educated regardless of wealth, birth or other accidental condition.
- that the children of the poor must be thus educated at common expense." (as cited in Padover, 1952, p. 43)
Here, conversely, is but one example why corporations and their Republican lackeys don't want you and I to have the CPB, PBS, NPR or knowledge and information about what they're doing to, with and in our government:
"You can only get really unpopular decisions through if the electorate is convinced of the value of the environment. That's what natural history programmes should be for." --David Attenborough
The more we know and so, the more we vote and act, regardless of the topic, the less the corporations can get away with, ladies and gentlemen.
And they'll be only too happy to do just that--get away with all they can.
Keeping you and I ignorant suits them very nicely, thank you very much.
Links: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/npr-funding-vote_n_837014.html
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2313338
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/17/134619750/how-offshore-tax-havens-save-companies-billions?ft=1&f=1001
Click here to access C-SPAN's live video stream.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Five myths about Ronald Reagan (guest post from The Washington Post)
I didn't write it but wish I had:
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.
It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.
2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.
Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.
Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.
And the middle- and lower-classes have been getting additionally screwed ever since, no less so than when George W. Bush and the Republicans gave huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country, as though they needed it, while adding trillions to the national debt.
3. Reagan was a hawk.
Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.
4. Reagan shrank the federal government.
Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.
Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.
5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.
Reagan's contributions to the culture wars of the 1980s were largely rhetorical and symbolic. Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, Reagan began the odd practice of speaking to anti-abortion rallies by phone instead of in person - a custom continued by subsequent Republican presidents. He also advocated prayer in public schools in speeches, but never in legislation.
Will Bunch is the author of "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy." He is a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow with Media Matters for America.So you know, there is far more to the article than what is shown here. I only put up a bit for brevity.
So much for the mightily-revered Ronald Reagan and his presidency, eh?
Happy 100th birthday, Ron, wherever you are.
Link to original post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?sid=ST2011020403674
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.
It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.
2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.
Certainly, Reagan's boldest move as president was his 1981 tax cut, a sweeping measure that slashed the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. The legislation also included smaller cuts in lower tax brackets, as well as big breaks for corporations and the oil industry. But the following year, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.
Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.
And the middle- and lower-classes have been getting additionally screwed ever since, no less so than when George W. Bush and the Republicans gave huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country, as though they needed it, while adding trillions to the national debt.
3. Reagan was a hawk.
Long before he was elected president, Reagan predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse because of communism's inherent corruption and inefficiency. His forecast proved accurate, but it is not clear that his military buildup moved the process forward. Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.
4. Reagan shrank the federal government.
Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This rhetorical flourish didn't stop the 40th president from increasing the federal government's size by every possible measure during his eight years in office.
Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion. Many experts believe that Reagan's massive deficits not only worsened the recession of the early 1990s but doomed his successor, George H.W. Bush, to a one-term presidency by forcing him to abandon his "no new taxes" pledge.
5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.
Reagan's contributions to the culture wars of the 1980s were largely rhetorical and symbolic. Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban on abortion. In fact, Reagan began the odd practice of speaking to anti-abortion rallies by phone instead of in person - a custom continued by subsequent Republican presidents. He also advocated prayer in public schools in speeches, but never in legislation.
Will Bunch is the author of "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy." He is a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow with Media Matters for America.So you know, there is far more to the article than what is shown here. I only put up a bit for brevity.
So much for the mightily-revered Ronald Reagan and his presidency, eh?
Happy 100th birthday, Ron, wherever you are.
Link to original post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?sid=ST2011020403674
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
