Katie Doyle, Girl About Town

Sunday, Jan. 04, 2004 - 8:01 p.m.

Today's entry comes courtesy of Donald B. Altman, of Singular Technologies, New York. I hope he doesn't mind, but I'm reprinting his email here. If I could ask him first, I would, but Donald, if you come across this and hate it, I'll take it down. For what it's worth, I would rather run thru fire naked than see Ronald Reagan - the Poster Child for Trickle Down Economics - replace FDR on the dime, which movement is currently afoot.

Here's a brief history, for those of you who aren't familiar with Trickle Down, Voodoo Economics, though I think most of you do. It comes courtesy of the Associated Press, 2001.

In 1981, new President Ronald Reagan prodded Congress to pass a huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy. One of his aides slipped and said the plan's small cut for lower brackets was a "Trojan horse" to lure Congress members into supporting it. Reagan promised that the reduction would jump-start America's economy through the "supply-side" principle: i.e., the investor class would have more money to spend on factory and business expansions, creating jobs and causing money to "trickle down" to the working class. Reagan said his cut would unleash "the dynamics of the free market," spurring growth, producing more federal revenue and balancing the U.S. budget by 1983.

Which I must interject, we all know did not happen. At all. Not even close:

Since tax reductions are immensely popular, Congress jumped on the bandwagon, even though then-Vice President George Bush previously had called supply-side "voodoo economics." A feeding frenzy occurred, with cliques of Congress members giving special write-offs to their favorite industries. The result was the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, (sound familiar?) the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled.

Writing in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, former House Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, commented: "Reagan's tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn't call these taxes.' They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, user fees' and revenue-enhancers.' Big business got the gravy, and the country got the business. The monumental errors of 1981's tax-cutting frenzy burdened our national budgets for the next 18 years."

Yeah. That sounds like the guy I want replacing FDR on the dime.

FDR, for those of you too young to remember - most of you, I should think - was the guy who came up with the TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority - and the New Deal.

The TVA was one of the flagships of Roosevelt's New Deal program. It brought affordable electricity to thousands of "forgotten people" living in the Tennessee Valley in substandard rural conditions, served to control the flood waters of the Tennessee River, and brought modern agricultural techniques to the region. Not to mention its emphasis on conservation; FDR was way ahead of his time with that. And FYI, the TVA is still operational today. It's a pretty impressive organization; I suggest you follow the link above and spend 5 minutes just reading up on all it has and continues to accomplish.

As for the New Deal, that program boosted this country out of a little thing called The Great Depression - I'm sure you've heard of it - and was responsible for such accomplishments as the Works Progress Administration, responsible for providing jobs for 8 million Americans during the Great Depression, building, among other things, hospitals and schools; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Civil Works Administration, which provided jobs to 4 million Americans building/repairing roads, parks, airports, and more; the Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided jobs to 2.5 million single men and 8,500 single women maintaining and restoring beaches, forests, and parks; the Public Works Association, which built the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River; Social Security; the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and the Fair Labour Standards Act of 1938, which made child labor and sweatshops illegal. The New Deal also made possible such national treasures as Mt. Rushmore, and financed conservation and art preservation projects galore, at a time when Americans probably needed them most.

Roosevelt himself also founded The March of Dimes and led the fight to find a vaccine for polio. Which, I might add, he was successful at, though when I was a kid, I wasn't as hyped about that as I am now. The March of Dimes has a link on their site to write your congressperson and let them know this proposed act is a bunch of hooey and you want the damn dime left alone.

Because, yeah; Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves to be replaced on the dime by a president with the economic calibre and lack of vision that Ronald Reagan had. Especially when the motivating factor for the idiotic congressman behind the Act is an unflattering tv movie about Reagan produced for CBS.

That's right. All this bruhaha is because some Hollywood idiot made a tv movie about Reagan showing him to be a weakling, so another idiot in Washington decided that merited Reagan replacing FDR on the dime. I really have to freaking wonder how the morons in Washington ever accomplish anything worthwhile when they seem to spend all their frigging time running around demanding fast food places change the name of french fries to freedom fries and writing Acts to replace great presidents on money with mediocre ones because Oh My God, there was an unflattering tv movie written about them. Not to mention the money it costs to change the presses in all the mints to make a new frigging coin and paying the artists whom you've hired to come up with an acceptable image, which then must go thru all kinds of channels to get approval.

Over a TV MOVIE.

Seriously, people, I can't stand it.

But the point of all of this is Donald's missive regarding a movement to replace FDR with Ronald Reagan on the dime, which I really don't consider such a little thing, afterall.

Dear Friends -

USA Today is running a poll to determine whether Americans want to keep Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime, or replace him with Ronald Reagan.

It's just a little thing, but very symbolic. Is this really the end of the New Deal? A foreshadowing of events to come next November? Voting only takes 30 seconds. Click on the link below (or paste it into your browser). And when you're finished, please pass this on to others.

Please do this - a symbolic but important gesture to fight the madness. Roosevelt is only getting 38% of the vote at this writing. Spread this around.

Thanks!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-12-05-reagan-dime_x.htm

--Donald B. Altman, Singular Technologies, Croton-on-Hudson, NY

Consider it spread, Don.

Peace out,
Katie

0 comments so far

*HUGS* TOTAL! give katiedoyle more *HUGS*
Get hugs of your own

Yesterday's News - Next Stop

In which Katie shares sad news - Wednesday, Apr. 01, 2015
In which Katie returns after a very long absence - Monday, Jun. 25, 2012
In which Katie pokes her head in and brushes some of the cobwebs away - Thursday, May. 06, 2010
In which Katie asks you to write your congressman again. - Monday, Jun. 02, 2008
In which Katie asks you to please click the link and send the message to protect the rights of artists - Wednesday, May. 21, 2008