[lbo-talk] California Collapsing: What Would Reagan Do

Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Sun Nov 22 02:56:03 PST 2009


On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:31:51 -0500 SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> writes:
> michael perelman wrote:
>
> > When he was in office, Ronald Reagan looked bad. Now, by today's
> > standards, he looks like a progressive.
> >
> > Reagan, Ronald. 1973. "On Spending and the Nature of Government."
>
> > National Review (7 December).
> >
> > "When I took office in 1967, we discovered that the promise of "no
> tax
> > increases" could not be carried out. California was virtually
> > insolvent, the precious administration having changed that state's
>
> > system of budgetary bookkeeping in a way that allowed the spending
> of
> > 15 months' revenue in twelve months' time, thus avoiding a major
> tax
> > increase in election year 1966. The state government was spending
> $1
> > million a day more than it was collecting."
> >
> > "California, unlike the Federal Government, cannot print more
> money or
> > pile up deficits. The governor is required to submit a balanced
> > budget, and if any additional taxes are needed to balance revenues
>
> > with spending, the constitution requires the governor to propose
> > higher taxes."
> >
> > "So our first major lesson in government was painful: for the
> > taxpayers and for us. We had to increase taxes by some $800
> million to
> > balance the unbalanced budget we inherited."
>
> This was actually orthodox right-wing doctrine at the time. It was
> considered "liberal" to resist tax increases in the face of deficits
> and
> "conservative" to accept their necessity. That only changed in
> 1978-80
> with the emergence of Laffer-type rationales for tax cuts. In the
> 1976
> campaign, Jude Wanniski had tried to convince the Reagan team to
> embrace
> Jack Kemp's supply-side tax cut proposals, but they were rejected on
>
> "fiscal responsibility" grounds. Obviously that stance was reversed
> over
> the next four years, which proved to be a major reason for
> conservative
> electoral success.

All that is certainly true. However, if in 1966 Pat Brown had beaten Reagan and gotten re-elected and then in his second term proceeded to raise taxes in order to balance the state budget, I can gaurantee you that Reagan would have been first in line to denounce Brown for raising taxes "on the backs of the people of California."

Jim F.


>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>

____________________________________________________________ Liberty University Online Earn a bachelors degree online in Nursing. Get free info now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=f8Xlx0mKZeV0rfh5N1GW1QAAJ1DoEMrytxsVXKlEh0tvqeWlAAQAAAAFAAAAAM3MCD8AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABSGmAAAAAA=



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list