I am a little baffled by your portrait of Reaganomics as a Democratic policy, but it is whimsical, and I like whimsy. Of course, the first round of tax cuts occurred due to Kemp- Roth, and most Democratic analysts I have read blame Reagan for pushing deregulation so far, but perhaps I missed something. I looked in Britannica, just out of curiosity. The level of detail is not great, but the excerpt is interesting:
The Ronald Reagan administration
Reagan took office and pledged to reverse the trend toward big government and to rejuvenate the economy, based on the theory that cutting taxes would stimulate so much growth that tax revenues would actually rise. In May 1981, two months after there had been an assassination attempt on Reagan, Congress approved his program, which would reduce income taxes by 25 percent over a three-year period, cut federal spending on social programs, and greatly accelerate a military buildup that had begun under Carter. The recession that had resulted from Volcker's policy of ending inflation through high interest rates deepened in 1981, but by 1984 it was clearly waning, without a resurgence of inflation. The U.S. economy experienced a strong recovery.
britannica.com
The article is elsewhere fairly critical of Reagan, by the way. Anyway, if Reagan were not primarily responsible for tax cuts, why hold him responsible for deficits? You are making my head spin<g>......
As for whether deficits matter much, as long as debt service is manageable, well, they have not so far. The sole recession since 82 lasted 7 months. Otherwise, it has been prosperity as far as the eye can see..... |
