From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:10:28 GMT

  I'm not sure I care to defend "Reaganomics" since someone would
have to tell me what it is first, but you do have a couple of fallacies
in your post.  If you were going to blame "Reaganomics" for the current
recession, there are better arguments.


In article <1992Aug17.133543.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>Hello.  I've read opinions from various Republicans at the convention in
>the newspaper and something that keeps coming up is Bush's supposed
>abandonment of Reagan's economic platform.  These Republicans believe
>that if Bush had stayed with Reagan's plan, we wouldn't be in the economic
>situation we're in today.  My question is, can't several of the reasons
>for this recession be traced back to Reagan's policies?...
>1. By deregulating some of the aspects of the banking system yet still
>   insuring it, the S&L crisis will cost the tax payers billions of dollars.

  True enough, but you can throw all but about 17 members of congress in
on the blame of this one.  Remember that Reagan tried to put a stop to
the problem in 1986 when it was "only" a $15 billion problem.  It was
after Jim Wright and his cronies got through delaying and thwarting Reagan's
efforts that it become the $300 billion (or so) problem it is today.

>2. The Trickle Down Theory.  By reducing taxes on the wealthy (80% of
>American did NOT receive a tax break in the Reagan years) and cutting
>back on social programs, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

  Well, the rich did get richer, but so did the poor.  Look up
the data.  Better yet, I'll post a WSJ article from May 28,1992.
I was meaning to do it anyway.

  Even Krugman has abandoned this idea and he was the intellectual point
man of "the poor got poorer".

>3. By bloating the military budget while having no regard towards the
>rapidly increasing federal deficit, Reagan helped to establish a 
>monumental deficit in the 90's.

  See _Entitlements_.  They grew faster and by a much greater dollar amount
than defense could ever hope too.  Do I need to post this _yet again_?
They were about $330b at the start of Reagan's term and are now $728
billion.  

  The BS you hear about defense spending is (mostly) just politics.  If we 
don't get entitlements under control, we will not get the budget under control.
Defense is on a rapid decline.  Entitlements are going the other direction.


  If the defense spending helped win the Cold War, I consider it good.
If it didn't I would consider bad.  The problem is we will never know and
it has little to do with our current problems (since ever agrees to
reduce it.)  Entitlements, meanwhile, accounted for more money and faster
growth than defense could ever hope too.  However, it has been politically 
suicidal to even bring this up.  There are those that blame the Republican
attempts to get a control on entitlements on their Senate losses in '86.

>Can someone explain how Reaganomics can still be percieved as something
>that has helped this country and should never have been abandoned/weakened?

  Well, we did have the longest peacetime expansion in US history in
there, which even Krugman now admits helped the poor.  If you are going
to dispute "Reaganomics", I think you are going to need to come up
with better arguments.  I'm not saying there aren't any, just that these
aren't really them.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke