The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter

John Kennedy was no Ronald Reagan on taxes, despite what some conservatives might claim

January 26, 2011 RSS Feed Print

This is a big year for iconic presidential anniversaries. Fifty years ago last week, John F. Kennedy was sworn in as president, an inspiration, especially for liberals. A century ago next month, Ronald Reagan was born, a centenary that is spurring extended celebration and reverence on the right.

[See a photo gallery marking Reagan's 100th birthday.]

Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.

The notion of Kennedy as tax-cutting hero dates at least to the 1970s, when then Rep. Jack Kemp was writing the tax-cut legislation that Reagan would sign in 1981. Since then, political ads contrasting clips of JFK advocating tax cuts with the target Democrat of the moment have appeared regularly. See, for example, Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Linda McMahon in Connecticut last year.

[See 2010: The Year in Cartoons.]

The argument that JFK's economic policies are more closely aligned with the modern GOP than Democrats is doubly attractive for conservatives. They can paint their tax cut-centric policies as having a rich bipartisan past abandoned by the modern left—and tweak liberals by absconding with one of their icons.

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

[See editorial cartoons about the economy.]

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Tags:
unemployment,
John Kennedy,
deficit and national debt,
Scott Brown,
democratic party,
Barack Obama,
Ronald Reagan,
republican party

Reader Comments Read all comments (15)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

sixty-five percent on marginal income would leave the government and programs solvent ... after years of creating a deficit and a class of wealthy that aren't going to be part of our solutions are we better off ... or are we falling into a state of ideology run politics and economics ... choking the governments (city,state and federal) of income hurts everyone eventually ... more so it has created a two class system ... something that our government was trying to eradicate through smart programs and regulating business and financial institutions to protect citizens ... those that attack social programs and government oversight have their own agendas and can't be trusted to act as accountable agents ... these so called 'constitutionalists' are not at all ... those that attack the poor and disabled or unemployed are insensitive and inconsiderate ... we can be better as a country if those that push selfish policies are marginalized and ignored ...

joseph hugh o'brien of TX 2:25PM December 24, 2011

Good hack job. You fail to note that although the tax rate was high, there were multiple deductions used to lower the rate significantly. Good socialist banter but terrible journalism. But you guys aren't journalist right?

Charles Harbinger of CA 6:00PM December 13, 2011

To put it all in reality, you need to compare the real percentage of corporate taxes actually paid which is 11% this year because of corporate loopholes and off shore banking of profits as a shield, and compare that to 41% actual taxes paid by corporations during the Kennedy years to not only understand the revenue loss, but more importantly to understand that when the rate is high or at least reasonable like 35-45%, it makes the corporate world leave the money IN THE COMPANY and thus allows for growth and adding jobs rather than pay the money out to CEO and top company officials, and also makes the company invest in itself instead of constant mergers and quick buy and sell for profit that we see now. WE NEED MORE REVENUE

Ed of CA 6:16PM August 15, 2011

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.

3 Reasons Why the Scott Walker Wisconsin Recall Election Matters

Scott Walker is a canary in a coal mine.

The Right's Fixation With 'Vetting' Obama

American voters can use the past four years to judge Obama's qualifications as president

Voters Tuning Out Flood of 2012 Super PAC, Campaign Ads

This will be the year of grassroots voters, not Nielsen families.

Scott Walker's Union Fight Helps Mitt Romney Against Barack Obama

The Wisconsin governor refuses to back down from his opposition to collective bargaining.

Why Is It Only Women Who Need 'Informing' on Reproductive Health?

Men's sexual behavior could also use some "controlling."

advertisement