Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Carter in 1980 Election: Raise Taxes and Throw People Out of Work to Reduce Inflation (true dem)
Various | 6-7-04

Posted on 06/06/2004 9:36:25 AM PDT by jmstein7

The Washington Post, June 7, 1980

Yesterday's economic figures sharply higher unemployment, sharply lower inflation rate -- suggest that President Carter's economic policies may be creating the desired, albeit risky, political effect.

WIN, of course was a Republican acronym: the buttons symbolized Gerald Ford's 1974 attempt to Whip Inflation Now Carter's Democratic critics have accused him of adopting Ford-like economic policies, a charge that is difficult to contradict. [Flip Flopper!!!]

Carter's political calculation is straightforward: he reckons more potential voters are upset about inflation than about unemployment, so he is willing to let more people lose their jobs if inflation can be brought down in the process.

...

Trreasury Secretary G. William miller and Charles Schultze, Carter's chief economic adviser, said yesterday it would be "inappropriate at this time" to discuss a tax cut to restimulate the economy.

...

As it stands now, Carter's 1981 budget provides for an effective tax increase of $50 billion, including the new excise tax on oil production, previously scheduled increases in Social Security taxes and additional income taxes produced by inflation, which pushes most Americans into higher tax brackets.

The New York Times, June 29, 1980

Accusing Mr. Carter of ''fighting inflation with higher taxes, mounting unemployment and deepening recession,'' Ronald Reagan moved to pre-empt him by calling for immediate enactment of $36 billion of individual and business tax cuts, to take effect Jan. 1. The Democratic majority in the Senate promptly voted down an amendment to the budget embodying the Reagan proposals, thus giving Mr. Reagan and his Republican allies in Congress a charge to hurl in their fall campaigns. Senate Democrats rushed protectively to promise their own tax bill in September, House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill said that would be not only unwise, but impossible and suddenly, the heat was on Mr. Carter.

The Economist, July 12, 1980

First, Mr Carter will mount a tough frontal assault on Mr Reagan's policies. There will be no pretence at maintaining presidential aloofness from the fray. The White House reckons that Mr Reagan had too easy a time in the Republican primaries. It is hoping that the press and television will now put him under the sort of searching scrutiny that harmed Senator Edward Kennedy so much at the start of his primary campaign. An inkling of how the president intends to act came in Los Angeles on July 3rd when, without ever mentioning his opponent's name, Mr Carter attacked the ''sheer deception'' of those (like Mr Reagan) who advocate huge tax cuts while claiming that public spending need not be savaged: ''a classic offer of a free lunch in an election year''. The president also tore into those (again, Mr Reagan) who looked on the past with ''nostalgia'' and who ignored the harsh realities of society before the welfare state.

The New York Times, July 13, 1980 (Adam Clymer)

But the ''conservative'' issues somehow come together, especially in the Republican Party, and it no longer seems very surprising. After the party's platform committee last week finished advocating every new weapons system the Pentagon had heard of, abandoning four decades of support for the Equal Rights Amendment and calling for anti-abortion justices of the Supreme Court, Senator John G. Tower of Texas, the committee chairman, called it a ''pretty moderate platform.''

Much of the platform and of the Republican campaign to come will be focused not on the social issues that have intense constituencies, but on the economy. The New Republican Economics will be used to justify the old politicians' tax-cut campaign promise as one main theme. The denunciation of Mr. Carter for using unemployment as a tool against inflation, a staple of past Democratic platforms attacking Republican Presidents, will be another theme.

...

Will the party whose candidate loses this time conclude, in the amorphous way that American political parties act, that it lost because it mistook the national mood? If the Democrats win, will the Republicans decide to try a less conservative candidate and move back toward the middle? If the Republicans win, will the Democrats decide their mistake was in not holding their own turf, but in moving toward the Republicans [nope -- and foolishly so (Mondale)]? If, somehow, John Anderson wins, will they both decide they took a mistaken turn and lean left?

The New York Times, July 25, 1980

Senator Russell Long, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, has compared that proposal favorably to the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts of 1964: ''They expanded production, balanced the budget and we had relatively full employment,'' he told Mr. Miller, in words the Republican candidate himself might have used. ''I think the same approach might be appropriate in the present situation.''

...

Mr. Carter might yet get the better of the tax issue. Mr. Reagan's proposal is widely viewed as inflationary, despite Senator Long's comments; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that while it would reduce revenues in fiscal 1981 by only $19.8 billion, the revenue loss would rise to $58.1 billion in l985. That directly contradicts Mr. Reagan's argument that lower tax rates would soon increase revenues by stimulating consumption and production and broadening the tax base. [Wrong again, New York Times!]


TOPICS: Extended News
KEYWORDS: jimmycarter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2004 9:36:26 AM PDT by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

BUMP!


2 posted on 06/06/2004 9:37:32 AM PDT by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Wonderful find!!
3 posted on 06/06/2004 9:43:52 AM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Excellent piece of detective work, jm. Hoist them on their own petard. Never forget the true nature of the Democrat elitists.


4 posted on 06/06/2004 9:47:49 AM PDT by Paul_B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mich0127; RightRules; MeekOneGOP; Peach; onyx; backhoe; Mia T; 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub; ...

I'll BUMP this to my list, then...

BUMP!


5 posted on 06/06/2004 9:49:46 AM PDT by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

BTTT!!!!!!


6 posted on 06/06/2004 9:50:52 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Oh how I remember Jimmahs fireside chat with the people of the USA where he said we should'nt expect to live the way we want and that we wanted far to much. That we were selfish and should learn to live with less.

This week we will honor a man who utterly rejected that idiotic idea. A man who said that NOBODY in the world can do what the American people can do when they put their minds to it. R Reagan will be remembered by this American who took a nation out of a double digit inflation, double didgit interest rates where most could not afford to own a "rat hole" say nothing about a home, and a nation that was about to fall apart at the seams.

Reagan said that we can do it! And we did under his leadership.


7 posted on 06/06/2004 9:54:44 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

I got married in 1977, and for the first time set up my own household.

By 1980, I was a firm conservative. Carter taught me a lesson I never forgot, from the "hate America first" attitude that permeated his administration, to mortgage rates pricing me out of the housing market, to watching a box of cereal rise from about 50 cents to over a $1.

My kids are worried that Kerry might win this November. Not only did I tell them I doubted it, but I reminded them of my experience.

After 4 years of a destructive liberal like Carter, the stage was set for a Reagan. Every so often people have to be reminded how capable a liberal is of trashing the country. Sad, but people forget.


8 posted on 06/06/2004 10:00:51 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care

Reagan saved us from Carter!


9 posted on 06/06/2004 10:03:29 AM PDT by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
The New York Times, July 13, 1980 (Adam Clymer)

Will the party whose candidate loses this time conclude, in the amorphous way that American political parties act, that it lost because it mistook the national mood? If the Democrats win, will the Republicans decide to try a less conservative candidate and move back toward the middle? If the Republicans win, will the Democrats decide their mistake was in not holding their own turf, but in moving toward the Republicans [nope -- and foolishly so (Mondale)]? If, somehow, John Anderson wins, will they both decide they took a mistaken turn and lean left?

So if the Republicans lost, it would have been because they were too far to the right and if the Democrats lost it would also have been because they were too far to the right. If Anderson had won it would have been because both major parties were too far to the right.

Jeesh! Once a Clymer always a Clymer.

10 posted on 06/06/2004 10:05:57 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Teach a Democrat to fish and he will curse you for not just giving him the fish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Any word yet from this Lunatic regarding Reagan's death?

Even Clinton had gracious words for RWR.


11 posted on 06/06/2004 10:09:20 AM PDT by Guillermo (Simpson, you've got a short in your tail light. It started blinking when you made that turn - Wiggum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

The guy was just an idiot if he believed you can cure inflation by causing a recession. Recession is a natural after-effect of reversing loose monetary policies that cause a general inflation, but it isn't the recession that cures the inflation, but the tightening of the money supply. I believe it was Milton Friedman who likened the process to curing alcoholism. True; you get shakes and tremors in the process of quitting the bottle, but you can't cure the condition simply by inducing shakes and tremors!


12 posted on 06/06/2004 10:09:45 AM PDT by Agnes Heep (Solus cum sola non cogitabuntur orare pater noster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

bttt


13 posted on 06/06/2004 10:30:12 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crz
Can you say

MEOW

Primary Sources: The President's Proposed Energy Policy

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.

14 posted on 06/06/2004 10:36:59 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Bump !!



Ronald Reagan with his
older brother Neil Reagan.
circa 1912.


15 posted on 06/06/2004 11:01:46 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is ONLY ONE good Democrat: one that has just been voted OUT of POWER ! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Thanks for posting this, Howlin. What a weak, moronic imbecile carter was. Pathetic. He would have made us into a third world country if given another term.

Thank you Ronald Reagan. We will always be grateful to God for you and for your leadership at this crucial time in history when we needed you the most.


16 posted on 06/06/2004 11:01:52 AM PDT by pachanga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7


17 posted on 06/06/2004 11:04:18 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is ONLY ONE good Democrat: one that has just been voted OUT of POWER ! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rrrod

"Reagan saved us from Carter!"

Yes, without a doubt.

I would switch Government for Liberal but ...

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Ronald Reagan ... Remarks to the White House Conference on Small Business, August 15, 1986


18 posted on 06/06/2004 11:12:59 AM PDT by snooker (John Flipping Kerry, the enemy's choice in Vietnam, the enemy's choice in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Jimmah Cahtah really was a Socialist idiot peanut. Thanks for that post.

19 posted on 06/06/2004 11:24:12 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is ONLY ONE good Democrat: one that has just been voted OUT of POWER ! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
I well recall the time- some interest rates topped 23%, Cubans were in Angola and Yemen, the Soviets were in Afgahnistan, proxies of theirs were working their way up Central America. Not to mention the hostage situation in Iran.

We were burning gasahol to save gas and money, and Wee Jimmy ( like a real President, only smaller... ) was blaming us!
My first wife and I were determined to get Mr. Reagan into office and get Mr. Carter out.

And back then, the always-suspect polls made it look like Carter was a sure thing... never forget returning to the Atlanta American, after Market, on election night, and the morose Carter staffers ( they were headquartered there ) moping about. Until then, we thought Reagan had lost.

20 posted on 06/06/2004 12:52:23 PM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson