Dear New Hampshire Voters and Other Americans: Let's Review Why the Median Income in America has Not Been Good for Deca

Last summer, Larry Beinhart in OP-ED NEWS wrote a brilliant summary of why America had been actually in various phases of a recession for some time. The piece was entitled, "The 'Mysteries' of Bushenomics."

As almost everyone knows, the misguided blueprint of the United States of America for much of the spending habits over the last horrible 7-years comes relatively uncorrupted from the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrative periods between 1981-1992.

Ronald Reagan's approach was to try and grow the pie of economic materialism and infrastructure while slicing the pie a little less equitably among the Janes and John Does of America.

One of the theoretical underpinnings of this confused economic blueprint is that (1) as long as the Ayne Rand characters envisioned in the American Myth of the supposedly Entrepreneurial Free Market of the USA receive their profits unhindered by others-i.e. by governments--, (2) the economic pie will grow bigger and eventually all Americans of every stripe will be blessed by the growing of the American Economic Juggernaut.

I ask you America, "Well, it hasn't been working for nearly 30 years-so why keep trying?"

While there are some tiny portions of the Ayne Rand theory and of the horrible blue print which hold sway (or hold water) among the better theories of political economy and social productions on the planet, former CIA Director George Herbert Walker Bush in 1980 properly called the theories underpinning of the Reagan economic as simply "voodoo economics".

In the 1980s, others experiencing the working class world and world of unemployment in U.S. cities at that time ( an unemployment which reached in some neighborhoods nearly 35 to 40% by 1983) called the theory and practices of the Reagan (1) "reward the rich"--and (2) magically create jobs a theory of "trickle down economics".

In short, although the opportunist George Bush, Sr. bit his lip and eventually joined Ronald Reagan as Vice-President of the United States in 1981, America went through a period of numerous uncertain economic transitions and ups-and-downs throughout the 1981-1992 period.

The U.S., itself, was in recession again in 1991-1992 (despite deficit spending on the first Iraq War) and had been in and out of recession over the previous two decades several times.

In short, the Reagan-Bush economy of that particular 12-year period and the Bush program of 2001 till now have been unsuccessful in raising wages or raising the living standards of middle (& lower income earners) and households in the United States.

Dear America, don't you agree it high time to call the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II models a failure?

It is time to pick up the cards and deal out whole new hands starting in 2008.

We can keep some facets of the theory that have to do with strict scrutiny and efficiences, like the Reagan era focus on efficiency in reducing some of the ills of pork barrel spending the creations of more efficient departments managing mostly social infrastructure in the USA.

However, as for the pet-branches (Defense and Security) of Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 economic and government management go, America has to require that these branches go through the same scrutiny. These departments of indulgence in spending for these 3 misguided economic managers of the American economy and governance are now all clearly located under the branch of homeland security,--but they should also include the secret branches now overseen only by a handful of elite senators and congressmen (who have not done their oversight jobs well) over the past 8 years.

Where are the Republican and Democrats today who can fill real watch-dog roles concerning the ballooning defense and security related spending of the USA as congressmen or as president in 2008? Are such Americas actually running for office? Well, then vote for them-if not, please demand a new set of cards immediately, otherwise you are joining in another illusion and accepting the same shenanigans as last year.

Larry Beinhart began his reasonable critique of "Bushenomics"--and by extension "Reaganomics"--by sharing a favorite humorous irony concerning the illusions people (including compassionate Christians who should know better) have been holding out for Reagan and Bush economics over 3 decades now.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).