Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 28 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 8/10/10

The GOP wants to double down on trickle down

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   7 comments
Message Brian Cooney
Become a Fan
  (22 fans)

The GOP wants to double down on trickle down

Pity the Republicans! What's left for them to advocate when they're once again faced with a President who (like Clinton in the 90s) straddles the center of American politics? He even shares their deference to the military and defense establishment.

The irony here is that they are victims of their own success in moving the center of American politics so far to the right. Like Republicans in the Clinton era, all they can do is demonize Obama and stake out extreme positions. So they call him a socialist for winning passage of a health insurance bill very similar to what Nixon proposed in the early 70s.

They actually want to renew Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, at a cost of $680 billion over ten years, despite ballooning government deficits. They're clinging desperately to the failed trickle-down economic policy that has been Republican dogma since 1980.

trickling down flickr image by crowderb

During the first three decades after WWII, Democrats held onto much of the legacy of the New Deal. With the support of a healthy labor movement, they were willing to use the power of government to help all Americans share the benefits of economic growth.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, from 1946-1976 income growth for the bottom 90% was much faster than for the top 1%. From 1976-2007, we had the opposite: incomes of the top 1% grew ten times faster than those of the bottom 90%.

Until 1980, growth in wages kept up with increases in productivity. American workers were sharing in the wealth they created. Afterward, wages no longer kept up with productivity increases. Workers were being shortchanged.

The New Deal social contract held up even under Republican administrations before 1980. Under Eisenhower the top marginal tax rate was 91%. It was still a hefty 70% under Ford.

By 1980 the decline in American manufacturing and the migration of labor to the anti-union South had greatly weakened union political strength. This enabled Reagan to turn his back on the labor movement and initiate an era of gung-ho capitalism that is still with us.

The Reagan mantra was so-called supply-side economics. The New Deal prescription for economic growth had been to spur demand by directly putting more money in the hands of consumers through a sharply progressive tax rate and other redistributive measures. The goal was to make sure that the wealth created by a capitalist market benefitted everyone, not just a privileged class.

Supply-siders called instead for increasing supply by putting more money in the hands of the wealthy, who would invest it in increased production, thereby creating jobs. This in turn would put more money in the hands of consumers. So the increasing wealth of the already wealthy would "trickle down" to the lower classes.

Supply-siders argued that the best way to increase investment was to lower the marginal tax rate on wealthy people. After all, they're the ones who have money to invest, not ordinary folk who live from paycheck to paycheck.

Reagan reduced the top tax rate to 50%, and then to 28%. His economic advisors went so far as to claim that government revenue lost through tax cuts for the wealthy didn't need to be paid for by spending cuts. Instead, they would be offset by increases in tax revenue due to economic growth.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Well Said 1   Supported 1   Interesting 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Brian Cooney Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

I'm a retired philosophy professor at Centre College. My last book was Posthumanity-Thinking Philosophically about the Future (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). I am an anti-capitalist.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Are humans creating a posthuman future?

The Mythology of Individualism

The elephant in America's living room

Is capitalism inherently anti-democratic?

Trump's mental instability threatens national security

Haspel nomination is a sign of increasing lawlessness and brutality of U.S. government

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend