Two days ago, I blogged about how the Washington Post's Jeff Birnbaum believes that "without question," Reagan's tax cuts went "too far."
In today's Post, Slate's Timothy Noah went a few steps further in his negative review of John Patrick Diggins's Reagan biography "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History."
Noah tried his hand at being a shrink, attributing psychosexual motives to Reagan's economic policy. Emphasis mine.:
...Reagan, like just about every other actor who ever passed through Hollywood, had a very hard time viewing sex as something to repress. This genial hedonism would later express itself in Reagan's embrace of supply-side economics. Tax cuts would pay for themselves, he told himself, and when they didn't, he left to his two White House successors the drudge work of reducing the huge budget deficit.
Noah also insisted in his lead paragraph that Reagan's mind will ever remain "a notoriously difficult nut to crack" and that we may never really know if he was an "amiable dunce" or a geopolitical genius.
That in itself a ludicrous notion given the past 20 years of Reagan presidential scholarship, including books that give readers firsthand evidence of Reagan's engaged political mind such as "Reagan, in His Own Hand," which gives the reader rough drafts, revisions, and final drafts of 1970s radio commentaries that Reagan delivered on various domestic and international issues.
Noah has worked as a reporter for Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, but back in the Reagan years he worked for the Maryland branch of the Kennedy Dynasty (in 1986, to be precise, as Issues Director for a congressional campaign by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.)
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Tax cuts have never gone far
March 29, 2007 - 14:56 ET by bigtimerTax cuts have never gone far enough!
Not that the leftists don't make it their number one job to undo every chance they get...thats their job, thats what they do...besides throw around hateful spewing vitriolic blather.
Defeatist cowardous socialists all...live off of others sweat and blood.
LMAO!
Tax cuts would pay for themse
March 29, 2007 - 15:53 ET by NewsbusterbrownTax cuts would pay for themselves, he told himself, and when they didn't,
When they didn't?!! Didn't the goverment collect more revenue after Reagan's tax cuts, just like they did with the Kennedy and Bush tax cuts?
Well, yes, but saying so wo
March 29, 2007 - 15:58 ET by sarcasmoWell, yes, but saying so would require telling the inconvenient truth about spending (or perhaps even the very-ugly truth about unjustified & historically-massive borrowing!) and we can't have that, can we??
JMR
Tax revenues doubled after th
March 29, 2007 - 23:23 ET by MikeBTax revenues doubled after the Reagan tax cuts. The only reason the tax cuts passed Congress is that Reagan got on tv and talked to the people, giving the reasons for the tax cuts. The people then called their congresscritters and forced the congressmen to do their job, i.e. represent the people. The Democrats, who controlled both houses of congress, got even with Reagan by forcing a lot of porkbarrel spending on him by attaching it to bills that Reagan really wanted, and telling him to "take it or leave it." The so-called "Reagan deficits" weren't anything of the kind: they were Democrat deficits.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
(This is gonna annoy some p
March 30, 2007 - 05:52 ET by sarcasmo(This is gonna annoy some people, but it's what I sincerely believe...) Presidents since at least as far back as Reagan have CLAIMED to "want" a line item veto. I no longer believe any of them, until one of 'em puts the effort into GETTING a line item veto that they're obviously willing to repeatedly put into doing things like blatantly (and, I'll add, expensively for taxpayers as well as the nonviolent victims) ignoring the 10th Amendment when states pass politically-incorrect medical pot laws. I think saying, "I want the line item veto" is just an election season tactic most times I hear it. Almost all presidential candidates (with a notable exception, hence media hatred & my fandom) seem to dislike individual responsibility, and a line item veto would allow people like me to quickly blame an individual President for moronic things like spinach subsidies or peanut storage subsidies. Presidents who like pork (and I have yet to experience one that doesn't IMO, including Reagan) don't want individual responsibility when it comes to government pork, period!!! I don't blame 'em for not-wanting it, but I refuse to let this dishonesty stand any longer.
JMR
I hesitate to reply because
March 30, 2007 - 06:27 ET by RDWI hesitate to reply because sleep is calling me!
Before I say good night. I must agree with your conclusion, even though on many
issues, I respectfully disagree. You always create provocative debate.
Thanks for your kind words,
March 30, 2007 - 06:51 ET by sarcasmoThanks for your kind words, and enjoy your sleep. It's eventually going to take a President (who doesn't deserve it) a lot of hard work to overcome our natural suspicion as sensible Americans at this "fool me more than twice" point on the subject of fiscal individual responsibility, don'tcha think? It's very sad when the reputation of a once-high office goes down, as reputation is one thing that's a lot easier to lose than it is to gain...
JMR
It's ironic that this tax-cu
March 29, 2007 - 17:57 ET by mattmIt's ironic that this tax-cut hater is connected to the Kennedy Dynasty seeing as JFK's tax cut was bigger than Reagan's.
Tax cuts= more private invest
March 29, 2007 - 20:56 ET by MidAmericaTax cuts= more private investment and private sector jobs
Tax increases= more government 'investment' and government subsidies
The goal of the Taxocrats is reach the tipping point in taxation where most people will not want to give up whatever 'free government benefit' they are receiving to ever vote in a conservative government again.
For further analysis see 'Europe'.
Republicans think the 4th of
March 30, 2007 - 00:01 ET by worldleaderRepublicans think the 4th of July is everyday, Democrats think April 15th(Tax Day) is everyday.
Who's the hedonist?
March 30, 2007 - 05:55 ET by nkviking75Who's the hedonist? The President who cut taxes and also proposed big spending cuts, which Congress promised to enact, or the Congress, who broke their promise and spent even more than the burst of income the tax cuts brought in?
Jeff Birnbaum
March 30, 2007 - 11:04 ET by iveseenitallIsn't it funny how you can pick a liberal hypocrite the minute he opens his mouth. And talk about body language! The first time my wife an I saw Jeff Birnbaum on the Fox panel with Brit Hume, we turned to each other and said "he's a phony liberal". They think they can hide it, but their hatred of anything conservative is always obvious.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal