Political events in the era of Presidents Reagan and Bush senior have great relevance to today, from budget cuts ('sequestration') to President Obama's agenda. But this history is often remembered incorrectly, or not at all ? to the detriment of America's political discourse.
President Ronald Reagan takes the oath of office, issued by Chief Justice Warren Burger, in the US Capitol as Nancy Reagan holds the Bible on Jan. 20, 1985. Op-ed contributor John J. Pitney Jr. writes: 'As far back as the Reagan-Bush years,' leaders of the Republican party 'acknowledged that the party had to do better among minorities....Though always well-intentioned and often well-financed, these efforts invariably failed.'
Sen. Patrick Leahy/AP/file
EnlargeThe era of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush is the no-man?s land of historical memory ? and America?s political discourse is all the poorer for it.
Skip to next paragraph' +
google_ads[0].line2 + '
' +
google_ads[0].line3 + '
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The political events of those years (roughly late 1970s to early 1990s) have great relevance to the issues of today, from budget cuts (?sequestration?) to President Obama?s agenda. But this history is too recent for most adults to have studied it in school and too distant to be part of the firsthand experience of many politicians.
President Obama, for instance, had just started college when Reagan announced his candidacy in late 1979, and had only recently finished law school when President Bush left office in early 1993. He did not launch his own political career until 1996.
The memory gap is unfortunate. Between the history books and the news feeds is an undiscovered country full of fascinating stories that foreshadow today?s issues. As a quick look at this historical chapter will show, some of today?s ?new ideas? date back to the time when ?Family Ties? was must-see TV.
Consider sequestration, for instance. Reporting how automatic budget cuts became law, Bob Woodward recently wrote in The Washington Post: ?Key Republican staffers said they didn?t even initially know what a sequester was ? because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.?
Mr. Woodward was referring to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act for a balanced budget. The law provided for automatic spending cuts ? and they turned out to be steep ones ? if the deficit topped certain targets. The act was a response to growing budget shortfalls stemming from lower taxes and higher defense spending. One version passed in 1985, and after the Supreme Court struck it down, Congress passed a revision in 1987.
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings had only a limited direct impact on the deficit. But it led to some important plot twists in the saga of fiscal policy.
At first, Republicans applauded the measure as a way to curb spending. But in 1990, the prospect of big across-the-board cuts prompted President Bush to break his ?no new taxes? pledge. After he lost the 1992 election, it became Republican conventional wisdom that his loss stemmed from the tax reversal. That belief, in turn, hardened GOP opposition to tax increases. Whereas Reagan had actually agreed to several tax hikes starting in 1982, the post-Bush Republicans have been far more resistant.
Bush?s budget struggles show how quickly circumstances can change.
Initially, some lawmakers were willing to accept huge across-the-board cuts in defense because the cold war was ending. But in the summer of 1990, shortly after Bush gave in to a tax increase, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The Gulf War, now just months away, would prove to be a massive undertaking, and sequestration would have made it much harder. This example should give pause to those who are shrugging their shoulders at the current round of defense cuts. History is a tale of expensive surprises.
Misty May And Kerri Walsh Jake Dalton London 2012 field hockey Missy Franklin Hunter Pence NBCOlympics Danell Leyva
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.