Skip to comments.History lessons: Romney vs. Obama (Economist: Reagan Turned Around Worse Economy in only 4 years)
Posted on 09/06/2012 10:52:05 AM PDT by xzins
With the U.S. economy sputtering, President Barack Obama would like voters to believe he faces tougher challenges than any president since Franklin Roosevelt and needs two terms to turn things around.
Sadly, the president's problems are so daunting only because his policies aren't up to the task.
One need only look as far back as Ronald Reagan to find a fair but embarrassing comparison for Obama's special brand of statism.
In 1980, Americans were bearing double-digit interest rates and inflation, growing trade deficits on oil and with export juggernauts Japan and newly industrializing economies in Asia and stuck in a malaise of self-doubt quite similar to today.
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, appointed in August 1979, pushed interest rates even higher to halt runaway inflation, the economy suffered two wrenching recessions and unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent just 22 months into the Reagan presidency.
The Reagan recovery package emphasized putting money and decision-making back into the hands of ordinary citizens and private businesses. Immediate tax cuts, followed by tax reform -- just three personal income tax rates, a top rate of 28 percent and fewer special breaks and loopholes.
He removed Carter-era policies that discouraged domestic oil production and aggressively sought to right-size regulation -- not slash and burn but retaining what was needed to keep business honest and foster competition and jettisoning the rest.
All strikingly similar to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's platform.
When Reagan faced voters in 1984, the economy was growing at 6.3 percent and unemployment was down to 7.3 percent -- it ultimately fell to 5 percent, as Old Dutch engineered a 92-month economic expansion.
Not satisfied to rest on his laurels, he pursued free trade, called to task Japan and others for undervalued currencies and negotiated the 1985 Plaza Accord, which increased the value of the yen by more than 50 percent and set the stage for export-led prosperity of the 1990s.
Similarly, Obama inherited an economy crippled by gaping trade deficits -- this time with China and again on oil -- and too much financial chicanery on Wall Street.
Sadly, Obama has avoided confronting China on currency manipulation and the deficit with the Middle Kingdom is up 50 percent since the recent recovery began.
Obama has limited offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Slope of Alaska and Atlantic and Pacific coasts -- no surprise the petroleum trade deficit is up nearly 70 percent since the recovery began.
Every dollar that goes to China or for imported oil that does not return to buy U.S. exports is lost demand for U.S.-made goods and services and together those deficits are costing Americans 10 million jobs.
All this is exacerbated by Dodd-Frank financial reforms, whose bureaucratic burdens are forcing small banks to sell out to their larger brethren on Wall Street, where the deal making, sharp practices and gambling continue seemingly unabated.
Small businesses can't get loans and a day doesn't seem to pass that the financial media doesn't publish a story about federal and New York state regulators chasing some slippery scam or tax dodge begotten by Manhattan's big-bonus aristocracy.
As Obama faces the voters, the economy is growing at a 2.2 percent pace. Unemployment has fallen to 8.3 percent but only because so many adults have quit looking for work altogether. If the adult labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office, the jobless rate would be 11 percent and most economists see little room for improvement on that sad record.
Listen to Romney closely -- he's offering Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" all over again -- not a replay of the inept Bush administration, as Obama would have voters believe.
Encouraging individual initiative and entrepreneurs, an understandable tax system, producing more American oil, getting a fair deal for U.S. workers competing with China, lowering healthcare costs, and smarter regulation of Wall Street -- it all makes sense.
It's the smart choice.
(Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist.)
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2012/09/05/Outside-View-History-lessons-Romney-vs-Obama/UPI-29801346842639/#ixzz25iGDIpD9
Another great article from Dr. Morici.
He also refuses to recognize that the economic decline started almost immediately after the RATs took control of both houses of congress in January of 2007.
OOPS! Didn’t end my italics...
And it's even more true. IIRC, the downturn began after the Democrat party took over the Congress during the final Bush years.
“The real problems have not even been touched: the demographics of entitlements based on a shrinking workforce are still impossible, technology and globalization are still reducing the need and value of labor ( Labor Day 2012: The Future of Work), and the overleveraged, over-indebted, parasitic financial system remains solidly insolvent.”
So did Harding/Coolidge!
Romney needs to do better job making his case!
There are some other factors that do not show on the graph though. In Reagan’s day, more Americans were morally, spiritually and mentally healthy. Further, we had not eaten so deeply into our seed crop. We are very depleted from where we were then.
The only plus I see is that more Americans now are deeply suspicious of and alert to federal malignance and malfeasance in our lives, businesses and economy. Reagan had more to work with, even if there was more work to do. He was also popular, and enjoyed passionate support from the base.
New bumper sticker
Remember 1980,repeat it and win.
Obama, the black Carter.