Obama's Economic Plan Fails Where Reagan's Succeeded

August 26, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (32)

Let's face it. The U.S. economy is still flat on its back.

The Obama stimulus produced unemployment averaging 9.5 percent, killed 3.1 million jobs and has—as perhaps it only saving grace—the idea that maybe it kept things from getting worse. At least that's the way the White House puts it. The economic data indicates otherwise.

Writing in Friday's Wall Street Journal, economist and editorial board member Stephen Moore makes the valuable point that, if you want to find a way out of the current economic mess, Ronald Reagan provides a pretty good model for the way to do it. [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

Reagan and Obama, Moore suggests, had a lot in common when they came into office: both inherited an economy that looked like it had already hit bottom and yet was still heading downward. "And both," Moore writes, "applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus."

The difference in outcomes could not be more pronounced. By the time Reagan was where the current president is now in his first term the economy not only rebounded it had taken off like a rocket. Why hasn't the Obama economy done the same? Well, to hear the White House tell it it's because of a whole bunch of factors beyond the president's control like the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the Arab spring and the Gulf oil spill.

It's probably more accurate to place the blame a little closer to home—like in the Oval Office. Obama's program, even where he has not succeeded, is the mirror opposite of what Reagan did: raise taxes, hope inflation will make the debt cheaper to pay down and add, add, add to the regulatory burden, which keeps businesses from hiring new workers and expanding. [See an opinion slide show of 10 wasteful stimulus projects.]

As The Heritage Foundation put it back in July, "In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion" while "no major rulemaking actions were taken to reduce regulatory burdens during this period."

"Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38 billion," says the conservative think tank, "all of which further weakens an anemic economy and job creation."

America needs a plan for growth. There are some in Congress, like Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan and the House Republican Study Committee, Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and some senators who are trying to pull one together. It's a valuable exercise in demonstrating the contrast in visions between what the pro-growth wing of the GOP would do if given the chance and what Obama and his allies in Congress are doing or trying to do. The economy needs a pro-growth shot in the arm right now: someone needs to define what that might look like.

Tags:
economy,
Obama administration,
debt,
Ronald Reagan,
economic stimulus,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (32)

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

Despite the massive fiscal stimulus our economy remains on the brink of yet another recession with unemployment being the major culprit, a rising deficit, pending federal tax increases, and of course, the Eurozone’s uncertainty lingering in the backdrop. Fundamentally, our economic issues are intertwined with our federal tax system. As 2011 draws to an end, we now realize that 67 tax breaks (Social Security payroll tax, Alternative Minimum tax, etc) may expire on Dec 31st. What we may not realize is that those tax breaks represent just a miniscule section of the 68,000 pages in the IRS’ tax code. As a result, your first paycheck of 2012 will be noticeably smaller, and if the tax code is not corrected, that paycheck will continue to dwindle in the years to come. America’s tax code is an outdated archaic mess, needlessly complex due to deductions, credits, exceptions, and loopholes. It’s no wonder that folks are up in arms. President Reagan recognized the need to reform the Tax code back in 1981 when he proposed the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), the Reagan tax cuts, a 25% across the board decrease in personal marginal tax rates. Even with the then massive cold war military expense buildup and the subsequent dilution of the Act as enacted, the Reagan tax cuts showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates economic growth, reduces tax evasion and tax avoidance schemes, and can actually increase tax revenues from the rich. As to the misguided notion that 99% of Americans support 1% of the rich in tax payments, the truth can be found by Googling "Who pays federal income tax?" a link (below) to the National Taxpayers Union displays the actual stats: The top 1% of the wealthiest income earners pay 38% of US tax revenues, the top 5% pay 59%, the top 10% pay 70%, the top 25% pay 86%, the top 50% pay 97.3% and the bottom 50% pay 2.7% of all federal tax revenues. If you take a further investigative look it becomes clear that once federal spending is taken into consideration, those “1% of wealthiest Americans” are paying vastly more into government and consuming virtually nothing, while the bottom 50% receive the largest amounts of that spending while paying virtually no federal tax. We need tax reform that is fair, simplified, flat, easy to understand and collected from all US citizens above the poverty line, while eliminating income taxes for those below the poverty line. We need to drastically reduce entitlements, lower the corporate tax rate so that the US can regain its competitiveness in the global markets thus reducing our unemployment. We can continue to invest heavily in our country’s security, our educational system, shoring up our borders, deporting illegal aliens involved in criminal activities, drastically cutting entitlements, while withdrawing our military occupation of other countries. We can then begin enjoying a more prosperous era of economic growth and a simplified tax system we can all live with, as Ronald Reagan intended.

Igor Sill of CA 3:36PM December 06, 2011

Excuse me? Ronald Wilson Reagan's economy was better? I find that hard to believe. Yes, Reagan's dilemma peaked in August 1982 with nearly 11% unemployment. Far higher than anything currently seen under Obama. Plus, the "REAGAN RECESSION" as it was rightly called for a reason, went on to plague his successor George Herbert Walker Bush. "It's the economy stupid" became a rallying cry that swept draft-dodging William Jefferson Clinton into office. REMEMBER??

Yet, you make references to things beyond the control of the President he has never made excuses for.

Things like Governors who refused to accept the stimulus money. How much was given to Rick Scott here in my home state of Florida which he rejected outright? I have lived in Georgia as well under Obama. The Governor there also rejected stimulus funding for a time, until Georgia's situation became so bad that even he was forced to take some of it. But not until he stripped children's healthcare services of their funding to pay for his own pet projects around the state. He also kicked 81 disabled veterans to the curb when Governor Sonny Perdue shut down the domicile care wing of the Georgia War Veterans Home.

Yet, according to you, those were prudent actions, responsible actions. While the actions of Obama to save jobs, save lives and encourage an environment that would be conducive to creating jobs was nearly wholly rejected from the outset by the Republicans. That is Barack Hussein Obama's fault?

Yesterday I heard Rush Limpbaugh on the radio speaking about how he would support the Republican nominee no matter who it was. That includes names like Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein. Kim Jon Il. Fidel Castro. He said that he would vote for anyone but Barack Hussein Obama. Josef Stalin would make a great Republican, would he not? He stood for everything that the current Republican party does. Course, it is no surprise that the only difference between Reagan and Stalin was the moustache. Ever wonder why exactly it was that they looked so much alike? Now you know!

I have a plan for growth. It is called banning political parties. No more would the Republicans be able to place their own selfish interests ahead of the interests of the nation. No more would they be cutting medicare for the elderly while giving that money to the rich. If Robin Hood actually existed, he would be spinning in his grave at the redistributionist mentality of the Republicans who state that the poor must stay poor in order that they, the elites, be rich.

Palemoon of FL 11:42AM October 12, 2011

Ronald Reagan wouldn't have fared so well had Republicans only agreed to his tax cuts and blocked each of the tax increases he found necessary to enact.

What would have happened to the economy under Reagan had he been treated the way Republicans are treating Obama?

Caroline of NC 6:43PM September 03, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement