Lawrence,
Haven't read the book in years. However
it was the principle theme of the book as I remember and every article that I
read discussing it had that as the revelation that Stockman had let the cat out
of the bag. If I can reconstruct it. It was the section
that spoke of Reagan breaking the budget in order to give those who had too much
time on their hands (the left wing) less time to protest and think.
You might look under Trojan Horse. Or you might type Stockman
into you local search engine and find that material elsewhere more easily than
scanning the book again. For example it was Bill Greider who did the
initial interviews with Stockman that "outted" him. The
following is the end of a more current article by Greider comparing Stockman to
the present GWBush attitudes. It is found at:
The great accomplishment of Reagan and
the supply-siders was to persuade the old-guard Republican Party that its root-
canal approach to fiscal policy was a loser--and that recklessness can be a
win-win proposition for their side. If the Trojan horse approach succeeds in
winning regressive tax-cuts, the GOP delivers huge rewards to its favorite
clients. If this also creates a big hole in the federal budget, that's OK
too, since runaway deficits will throw another collar around the size of the
federal government and provide yet another reason to slash the liberals'
social spending. With clever marketing, the GOP may even persuade
voters it was spendthrift Democrats who created the red ink. Even recession
is OK if the timing is as lucky as the Gipper's. When this recession ends, Bush
will credit his tax cuts for the recovery and claim vindication in time for
re-election.
Democrats, meanwhile, are the "responsibles,"
telling the people to save their allowance for a rainy day. They were led into
this cul-de-sac by the champion of artful deception, Bill Clinton. Two years
ago, when the prospect of burgeoning federal surpluses arose, Clinton devised a
very clever ploy to hold off Republican tax-cutters. We will not spend the extra
trillions, he announced, we will pay off the national debt. Democrats felt
exceedingly virtuous about this position, although they understood that the
subtext was quite different: The surpluses would allow government to do big
things again for people--someday, but not yet. A different kind of leader might
have recognized that politics doesn't wait for ten-year budget projections. If
Democrats wished to accomplish big things like universal healthcare or helping
debt-soaked families, they should have gone for it right then while the
resources were available. Instead, Clinton's stratagem actually adopted the
old-time religion that Reagan had shed--a loss of nerve that is the opposite of
activist government. Some Dems are agitating to change that, proposing a genuine
commitment to healthcare reform and other measures, but others have internalized
the bookkeeper politics and are preaching hair-shirt economics: Cancel any tax
cuts if a severe recession wipes out our sacred surplus. That's a righteous
recipe for more pain.
One more point: Both parties are playing with a
phony deck of cards. No matter what unfolds this season, the government is not
going to reduce the "national debt." On the contrary, the government's total
indebtedness is going to keep growing steadily, from $5.6 trillion right now to
$6.7 trillion by 2011. Despite what you read in the newspapers, that occurs with
or without tax cuts and even if all the outstanding Treasury bonds are paid off
(if you still don't believe it, check the CBO's latest budget forecast with its
chart on page 17). The awkward fact neither party brings up is that federal
financing has depended crucially on collecting more money than it needs from
working people since 1983, when both parties collaborated in a great
crime of bait and switch. After Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy and business
in 1981, he turned around two years later and raised Social Security payroll
taxes dramatically on workers (earnings above $76,000 are exempted from Social
Security taxes). Ever since, workers have been paying in extra
money toward their future retirement--trillions more than needed now by Social
Security--and the government simply borrows the surplus revenue to spend on
other things: upper-income tax cuts or paying off Treasury bonds or reducing the
fiscal damage from deficits in the operating budget.
(Or as my accountant says: Only in America do
the very wealthy and the very poor share equality in taxes.
REH)
Taxing one class of citizens--the broad ranks
of working people--so government can devote the money to other people and
purposes is not only wrong but profoundly deceptive, bait and switch on a grand
scale. Government still owes workers the money, of course, and someday will have
to find the borrowed trillions somewhere, either by raising taxes or borrowing
the money or possibly by cutting Social Security benefits. When FICA taxes were
raised in 1983, Reagan at first objected and reminded aides that he was opposed
to raising taxes--of any kind. David Stockman reassured him. If the
rising payroll-tax burden was imposed on young working people, they would
eventually revolt and Social Security would self-destruct of its own weight.
The Gipper liked that and gave his OK. The same objective, now
called privatization, shows up again this year on George W. Bush's agenda. He
proposes to "save" Social Security by destroying it.
So Lawrence, it is not just money but as they
themselves put it, it is both a class and a culture war. The culture
is wealth as is the class. There is very little of what we
used to call in Oklahoma a sense of "owing rent" for the goods and values that
we receive as a result of living in this place as well as the importance of
making sure that I children have the same.
Regards,
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Opera Repertory Ensemble,
Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Magic Circ Op Rep Ens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 4:07 PM
Subject: RE: The balderdash
thread
> I have Stockman's book right here -- can you direct me to the paragraphs
> where he outlines this?
>
> Thanks.
>
> > But you might start with the Book by Reagan ex budget man
> > David Stockman where he outlines what they were going to do to push their
> > agenda by creating havoc in the banking system for social
> > purposes.
> >
>
