Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. The power of his economic policies, which amounted to little more than allowing the power of American industriousness to flourish unmolested by an overbearing state, unleashed decades of prosperity and altered the terms of economic debate. His legacy lives on.
Perhaps the greatest tribute to the success of Reaganomics is that, over the course of the past 276 months, the U.S. economy has been in recession for only 15. That is to say, 94% of the time the U.S. economy has been creating jobs (43 million in all) and wealth ($30 trillion). More wealth has been created in the U.S. in the last quarter-century than in the previous 200 years. The policy lessons of this supply-side prosperity need to be constantly relearned, lest we return to the errors that produced the 1970s.Not only did Reagan have the right instincts, but he had the backbone to stick to them.The heart and soul of Reagan's economic agenda were sound money (making the dollar "as good as gold," as Reagan used to put it) and lower tax rates. On monetary policy, Reagan has won a resounding victory. Today, nearly all economists agree with Reagan's then-controversial belief that the sole purpose of monetary policy should be to keep prices stable. Double-digit inflation is a distant memory unlikely to recur anytime soon.
When Reagan proposed his 30% across-the-board tax-rate cut, his critics howled that this would cause demand to rise and lead to hyper-inflation. In fact, supply rose faster than demand, and inflation fell to 4% from 13% and has fallen even lower since. When the economy went into a deep recession in 1981-82, Reagan's adversaries (and some of his own advisers) declared his tax cuts a failure. Reagan said stay the course, and the moment the final leg of the tax cut took effect, in January of 1983, the economy roared to life with an expansion that lasted more than seven years.Predictably, the historical revisionists are out to recast the story, but don't be fooled.When the budget deficit rose in the mid-1980s, the liberals warned that if Reagan would not raise taxes interest rates would skyrocket. He didn't and rates didn't. After the 1987 stock market crash, liberal John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that "this debacle marks the last chapter of Reaganomics . . . and the irresponsible tax cuts." Again, Reagan refused to buckle, and two months later the stock market recovered and the expansion roared on--an expansion that didn't end until George H.W. Bush reversed course and raised taxes in 1990.
The Gipper's critics have written an economic history of the 1990s that they portray as a repudiation of Reaganomics. In this telling--known as Rubinomics--the Clinton tax hikes of 1993 ended the budget deficit, which caused interest rates to fall, which produced the boom of the mid- to late-1990s. In fact, the budget deficit hardly fell at all in the immediate aftermath of the tax hike, and while long-term interest rates fell in 1993, they shot back up again in 1994 almost precisely through Election Day (rising by some 230 basis points from October 1993 to November 1994).G-d bless you, Ronald Reagan, America is in your debt.On that day, voters repudiated the Clinton tax hikes and the specter of HillaryCare and gave Republicans control of Capitol Hill to govern on the Reaganite agenda of lowering taxes and shrinking runaway government. Both the stock and bond markets turned upward precisely on Election Day in 1994, beginning a whirlwind six-year rally. By 1998, growth and fiscal restraint delivered a budget surplus for the first time in nearly 30 years. In 1997 President Clinton signed a further reduction in the capital gains tax, which propelled investment and the stock market to even greater heights.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/2967
I'm 23 years old. I'm a Democrat. I have the utmost respect for Reaganomics and today is a day that is worth commemorating.
I feel that my generation (Y) will split Republican/Democrat along social lines as well as over opinions on the use of the military, but not along economics. I think most of generation is actually Libertarian when it comes to economics.
I say Libertarian because I do not believe that either Democrats or Republicans have a monopoly on good, capitalist policy. My generation is confused that Clinton, a Democrat, presided over an economic boom while Bush, a Republican, can't control spending, never vetoes a spending bill, and has presided over a spiralling deficit.
Of perhaps most importance on Reagan's 25th is how will the new Fed chairman handle the challenges to come that center around the housing bubble and petrolism.
The party that can convince my generation (currently aged 11 to 29) that they have the plan for alternative energy resources, driving down our economic dependence on China and energy dependence on the Middle East, as well as guide us through what I believe will be a very rocky economic patch over the next 5-10 years as the housing bubble bursts... will control the federal government for most of this century.
Posted by: Croaky at January 20, 2006 11:05 AM




