£hr (gmltortoan
6
The voice of reason: Re-in venting Reagan
S. Scott Spagnola
Staff Writer
It seems like these days all I ever
hear is rhetoric about how bad
something has been for "the last
twelve years." Bill Clinton and his
liberal buddies say it so much that
it has become a cliche. Ever since
Ronald Reagan left office nearly
five years ago, liberals have been
on a campaign of misinformation
about what really occurred during
Reagan's tenure. The truth is that
the only economic crisis that oc
curred under the "twelve years of
Reagan-Bush" occurred in the last
year and a half of Bush's presi
dency, not Reagan's. Reagan sym
bolizes everything the leaders of
the Left despise. Many of them are
quasi-socialists who don't want to
admit that capitalism works and
that the economic boom that oc
curred in the 1980's takes the wind
out of their sail. The 1980's was
much sunnier than Clinton and his
intellectually elite buddies would
like you to believe.
"The rich got richer, and the
poor got poorer." Next to "the last
twelve years," this is the catch
phrase adopted by the Democrats
on Capitol Hill as well as liberal
interest groups. Most of their data
comes from the source, the Demo
cratic-controlled Congressional
Budget Office (CBO). The CBO
has continuously distorted statis
tics to paint Reaganomics as a tri
•
• "Where ther
: there is n
• -Hugh
J GET NOISY,
I GUILFORD!
• Speak your mind,
: WRITE A LETTER
j TO THE EDITOR
: Tell us what you're
• about, or happy
j GET THE TRUTH OUT
%
m
Spagnola
umph of the rich at the expense of
the poor. The truth is very differ
ent.
The CBO claims that the income
of the top 1% of Americans rose
by 65% from $343,610 in 1980 to
$566,674 in 1992. The figures may
be correct, but the analysis is
greatly flawed. The real reason for
this "growth" in the top bracket is
because more people that were in
lower income brackets in 1980
moved up by 1992. To illustrate
this, let's say we have a certain lib
eral senator from a wealthy fam
ily in New England. And let's say,
for practical purposes, that he lives
in a nation that has a population of
only 1000. This means that only
10 people can constitute the top
1% of the population. The year is
1980, and the senator is number 10
of the top 1% with an income of
$200,000. It is an election year, and
the nation is tired of double-digit
inflation and high interest rates.
•
Itapectibeg
They elect a conservative gover
nor from a large western state as
president. During the eight years
of this president's term, more
people earn more money. Soon,
people are catching up with our
senator from New England in
terms of income.
By the end of the decade, there
are 100 people besides the senator
earning $200,000 or more. But
since only 10 people can consti
tute the top 10%, the minimum
amount needed to belong to the top
1% has now gone higher. $2OO,
000 may have once been enough
for our senator to be in the top 1 %
in 1980 but not in 1992. So when
you see those figures that say "in
come in the top 1% rose 65%"
what you are really hearing is the
amount needed to make the top 1 %
increase 65%. Also keep in mind
that many people that were in the
top 1% in 1980 fell into lower in
come brackets as people below
them moved up. This is the truth
behind the rich getting richer, but
what about the poor getting
poorer?
According to data compiled by
the U. 5.... Census Bureau, the pov
erty rate declined from 15.2% in
1983 to 12.8% in 1989. Accord
ing to the Treasury Department,
86% of those in the lowest quintile
in 1979 had risen to a higher
quintile by 1988, and 47% of the
middle class had risen to a higher
quintile. In contrast, 53% of those
in the highest quintile fell into a
Photo by Mark Lewinter
SPECIAL DISPLAY & FREE BUTTONS
CELEBRATING THE
FREEDOM TO READ
.■ k m m ga h BOOKSCHAM PNOFD '
... bO cAfv VOU b=J
Guilford College Bookstore
Founders Hal!
M, T, F 9-5
W, Th 9-8
lower quintile. One study found
that incomes of the lowest fifth had
risen nearly 77% between 1977
and 1986. That is what really hap
pened.
"Reagan was anti-minority, anti
woman, anti-poor." Another myth
adopted by the Left Median in
come for women grew 31% from
1979 to 1990. Unemployment in
the black and Hispanic communi
ties dropped 9 and 7.35 respec
tively, and black-owned businesses
increased 38% from 1982 to 1987
compared with just 14% for the
rest of the population. Making the
least gains in the 1980's were
homes with single mothers. But
families in this category also rose
from 5.8 million in 1979 to 7.2
million in 1989. Reagan can't be
blamed if children are now our
poorest citizens, because they are
being raised in homes with only
one source of income. Individuals
must change this by taking greater
responsibility.
The deficit is another distortion.
Bill Clinton, Tom Foley, George
Mitchell and a host of other big
spenders in Washington love to pin
the deficit on Reagan. They say
either the rich didn't pay enough,
or Reagan spent too much on the
military. These assertions are com
pletely false.
Neither Reagan or Bush caused
the deficit First of all, the presi
dent cannot spend money; only the
Congress can do this. Second,
none of Reagan's budgets were
j&eptemfor 3, 1993
ever passed by Congress. Even
Clinton conceded that for "the last
twelve years, the president's bud
get was dead on arrival at Capitol
Hill." In the 1980's, social spend
ing increased nearly 300%. Even
the nearly doubling of revenues
could not keep pace with the rapid
growth of spending. If you are go
ing to say Reagan didn't care about
social spending, then you can't
blame him for the deficit. If you
are going to blame him for the defi
cit, logically, you would have to
concede that he did spend a lot on
social issues. The truth, of course,
is neither, because none of
Reagan's budgets got passed. In
cidentally, the military spending
that was proposed under Reagan
was relatively constant to that of
his predecessors in terms of per
centage of GNR
The economic boom that oc
curred under Ronald Reagan was
real. It was a record 92 months of
peacetime growth, 19.3 million
new jobs created, and there is
plenty of evidence to support the
fact that these were not "ham
burger jobs." Reflect on the 1980's,
and ask yourself, What can you
recall that was so bad? You lived
it; you were there.
The truth can be ignored to fur
ther any agenda of the week if so
desired, but that lends itself to in
tellectual dishonesty. As Rush
Limbaugh says, we must have the
"courage to believe the truth." That
sounds reasonable to me.