Local man takes issue with letter (02/21/2009)

To the editor:

Here we go again, ignoring the warning to "keep your mouth shut and your foot out of it," or "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."

I'm hoping here to ask a few questions and float an opinion or two.

In a letter to the editor last Thursday (Feb. 5) in the CR, Mr. Matt Minnich made some comments which in my view might do with some further examination.

Mr. Minnich stated that Ronald Reagan reduced the size of government and lowered taxes, leading American into a time of economic prosperity.

While it is clear that for several years Reagan supporters and apologists, as well as most conservatives, have advanced these views, such statements are quite often not factual. According to "U.S. Federalism and the New Conservatives," Reagan 20*20 is "the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan."

Back in June of 2004 Doug Kern wrote on 20*20, "Reagan's legacy is not wholly commendable. The size of government never shrank under Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal brought his legislative agenda to a screeching halt."

In fact, the size of the government increased under Reagan, and the facts show that the size of government actually did decrease under Clinton.

Federal spending under Reagan increased 25 percent from the time he took office until he left the White House, with the federal workforce growing from 2.8 million to 3 million. Under Clint, the workforce went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. As a share of gross domestic product (GDP), federal government spending under Reagan went down from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. Under Clinton, federal spending decreased to 18.3 percent as a percentage of GDP, and that reduction was twice that achieved during the Reagan years.

With respect to taxes, collections rose about 15 percent in real terms under Reagan, and as a share of GDP they decreased less than 1 percent. Under Clinton as a share of GDP, collections rose less than 1 percent. Between Reagan and Clinton the average working-class American could not have noticed any tax impact whatever. Those Americans who assuredly did notice a difference were the wealthiest of our nation. (The above information is quoted from an article by Michael Kinsley titled "Reagan's Record" published in Slate, February 2001).

Kinsley states: "The most dramatic rate reductions came in 1986. This bi-partisan effort, led by Dem. Sen. Bill Bradley, was a response to public outrage at revelations that Reagan's earlier tax cuts had left many wealthy individuals and profitable corporations paying no taxes at all."

Mr. Minnich also wrote that he had to laugh when considering the possibility that the government might be able to spend "wisely on anything." He mentions Social Security and Medicare, presumable as examples of our government's spending dollars in an incredibly stupid waste of revenue. Maybe, but I'm not really convinced by that. I know lots of folks who receive Social Security benefits, and I have never heard of a legitimate retiree complaining that the check was not received, or that banks would not honor the check, or that the amount had been reduced to reflect losses in the stock market (Social Security privatization, anyone?) With respect to Medicare-Medicaid, I've read that operating costs are about 2 percent of revenue, while costs are nearly 20 percent for private companies.

The Minnich letter says The New Deal did not end the Depression, but rather it was World War II. Really? I'm sure there are plenty of folks ready to believe that, but I don't believe it to be true.

In an article in the Huffington Post written by Larry Beinhart and published last week, the author notes that when the U.S. entered World War II tax revenues were at 7.7 percent of GDP, and government spending was at 12.1 percent of GDP. By 1944 everything was up. Tax revenues were at 21.7 percent of GDP and government spending was at 45.3 percent of GDP.

No one complained. We had a war to win, and we did.

I don't know of anyone who is contending that we should be spending half our GDP in the government, but most of the things I'm reading are saying the stimulus package is not nearly large enough to get the job done and that we are walking the brink of a new "Great Depression."

Surely any people who remember those times don't want us to risk living them over again.

Brilliant people on every continent and every nation know we are in trouble, and if we take care we may yet get through the hard times ahead.

Glen Priest

Portland[[In-content Ad]]