Didn't We Get Sick the First Time We Rode on This Thing?

If you say ... "I think our platform stinks," well, why be in the party? — Jack Kemp, Christmas 1988

 

SAN DIEGO — I think I feel like a Republican at a Democratic convention. I'm a hard-headed liberal; I can't stand these fuzzy-minded conservatives. Haven't any of them ever had to meet a payroll? Don't they know anything about the bottom line? Nothing but pie-in-the-sky promises guaranteed to wreck the economy and saddle our children (especially our unborn children) with debt 'til kingdom come.

I'm telling you, these Republicans are so fiscally irresponsible, they are driving this country to ruin. Borrow and spend, borrow and spend. Boy, was James Carville ever right: It's the economy, stupid. And with this party, the emphasis is on the stupid.

We wondered how anyone could have been dumb enough to buy voodoo economics the first time around — but now? The official line here at this convention of dreamy-eyed, goo-goo fantasists, who all believe in Prince Charming and the tooth fairy, is that voodoo economics would have worked in the 1980s if only that terrible Democratic Congress hadn't insisted on spending all that money. Leaving aside the fact that Ronald Reagan spent $2 trillion on weapons that we didn't need to defend ourselves against a Soviet Union in collapse, voodoo economics did not work.

Cutting taxes did not increase savings. Cutting taxes did not increase investment. Given higher profits, the corporations did not wisely invest in their plants; they went on a buying spree and bought each other in a merger mania that left them staggering with debt and in the process made tens of thousands of jobs disappear.

Now follow this bouncing ball closely: During the last five Reagan years (this is not counting the 1980-81 recession or the recovery that followed), the nation's wealth grew by 8 percent, compared with 31 percent between 1975 and 1980. But the distribution of income changed dramatically.

The top tax rate fell from 70 percent to 28 percent, and income for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans rose by 74.2 percent between 1977 and 1987. Income for the bottom 10 percent fell by 10.5 percent.

The top 1 percent now have 42 percent of the national wealth. Only those in the top 10 percent benefited from voodoo economics; the rest of us got dumped on. And that is not counting the additional $2 trillion in debt.

Hillary Rodham Clinton likes to quote that line about how insanity is doing the same dumb thing over and over, expecting different results each time. Don't you think hitting ourselves in the head with the sledgehammer of voodoo economics once was enough? It didn't feel that good.

I would like to point out on behalf of fiscal sanity and restraint that President Clinton has cut the deficit in half — with the hardest part being done in the first two years when he had a Democratic Congress. True, he passed what the Republicans invariably refer to "the largest tax increase in history," but it applied only to the richest 1 percent of Americans, not to thee and me. In fact, there's a droll note on Bob Dole's economic pipe dream: At one time, his advisers considered simply repealing the Clinton tax increase, but they realized that it would be politically disastrous because it would so clearly be nothing but a tax break for the rich.

Talk about which party can make "tough choices" — Clinton had to give up his entire economic stimulus package in 1993, the one he wanted to make the economy grow, because the deficit was so serious after 12 years of Republican economics. His restraint has paid off as interest rates have fallen and the growth rate has picked up nicely. Why would we want to go backward and put ourselves right back where we were?

Dole's economic plan is classic smoke and mirrors: onetime gimmicks, accounting tricks, the whole package. These Republicans just don't understand tough fiscal reality, that's all.

Meanwhile, here in sunny San Diego, there's a wary division between "the Jesus people" in the Christian Coalition and the rest of these folks. Old-time secular Republicans sidle up to reporters and quietly let it be known that "the Jesus people" are not their kind. "And there were a bunch of women feeding babies and telling Jesus stories," said one veteran with quiet horror.

The reason that the Jesus ladies are taking care of their babies is because this pro-family party has no provisions for child care. Or maybe they're against child care, I forget. A colleague of mine found a Pennsylvania delegate who had solved the problem: "We decided it would be cheaper just to bring our nanny with us."

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.