Lessons liberals won't learn
In my previous column, I underscored the 1920s lessons that President Obama and fellow “progressives” need to learn. These include tax cuts' value — lessons that Obama and his allies will refuse. They want big, expanded government, not big tax cuts and restraint.
Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who understood that reducing tax rates can actually create more revenue, wasn't proffering some mere academic theory. He and Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge cut the 73-percent upper-income rate left by President Woodrow Wilson. In 1922, it was cut to 58 percent; by 1925, to 25 percent.
What happened? Not only did the economy boom, vanquishing Wilson's double-digit unemployment, but Coolidge consistently balanced the federal budget. Mellon was right: More revenue came in, rising from $700 million to $1 billion.
Unfortunately, “progressive” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt skyrocketed the top rate to 94 percent. It would be reduced to 70 percent by 1965, but it took President Ronald Reagan to return it to Mellon-era levels, ultimately to 28 percent. Like Mellon, Reagan saw federal revenue increase, from $600 billion to $1 trillion.
So, why did deficits increase under Reagan? Liberals insist his tax cuts generated deficits. They're wrong.
Reagan's deficits resulted from revenue loss during the 1981-83 recession and — foremost — from excessive spending. As revenues rose from $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989, spending — on social programs by congressional Democrats and on defense by Reagan — soared from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion.
Reagan biographer Lou Cannon calls the Reagan deficits “war-time deficits,” aimed at winning the Cold War and terminating the Soviet Union. Once they did, they paved the way for President Bill Clinton to slash defense spending and balance the budget.
Reagan's deficits peaked in 1983-86, when the upper-income rate was still 50 percent. It wasn't reduced again until 1987, to 38.5 percent, and didn't come down to 28 percent until 1988. And Reagan's deficits decreased in 1987-89.
Think about that: Reagan's deficits peaked when the upper tax rate was 50 percent, far higher than the 39.6 percent that Obama and liberal Democrats demanded. If Obama believes deficits will come down with a 39.6-percent upper rate, why didn't they go down with Reagan's 50 percent?
That gets back to the main reason for most deficits: excessive spending. It's an elementary fact that liberals/progressives resist because it stands in the way of what they really want to do: grow government and redistribute wealth.
Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama‘s Mentor” and “Dupes: How America‘s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.” His column appears the first Sunday of each month.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: Kang story of the year for Pirates
- Many Americans have no retirement savings, Fed survey shows
- IRS cybersecurity breach touches lives of homebuyers, others
- Penguins GM Rutherford ‘wouldn’t make’ Despres trade today
- Healthy defensive back Mitchell eager for 2nd season with Steelers
- Shoppers pay premium for organic chicken
- Automakers do U-turn on infotainment systems
- Holiday weekend memories abound for 1965 enthusiast
- Task force to plot ways of alleviating gas glut in Pennsylvania via pipelines
- Apple finds bug that causes iPhones to crash
- Charleroi man charged in fatal crash to stand trial