Reagan Foundation: State of the Union: President Reagan's State of the Union Speech- 1/27/1987

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan, delivering the State of the Union Address, to a joint session of Congress, in 1987.

"President Reagan's State of the Union speech on January 27, 1987."

From the Reagan Foundation

State of The Union speeches can be important are not matter at all and be forgotten. Depending on who the President is, where he stands in the country politically and so-forth. And the situation of the country and so-forth, which in a lot of ways will determine how the President will be able to do that year. And what he'll be able to accomplish and for the President an opportunity to layout where he believes the country is and where he wants to take the country.

1987 was an interesting year, time and State of The Union for President Ronald Reagan. Because it was the start of his most politically difficult year for the Reagan Administration. Because of the Iran-Contra scandal and Congressional hearings come as a result of that both in the House and Senate. As well as economic difficulties that came for later with rising interest rates. And a rising national debt and deficit that led to the Wall Street crash in October of 1987. And with President Reagan becoming the most unpopular he had been at least since the 1981-82 recession.

So this State of The Union was the start of a very interesting and tough year for Ron Reagan as President and an opportunity for him to layout what he thought the condition of the country was. And where he wanted to take the country further. It was also the start of President Reagan's last two years as President and running out of time as far as being an effective leader that can push the country as well. 1987 was President Reagan's last year to basically move the country and to lead them in a certain direction. Partly because he accomplished almost everything he wanted to pre-1987, including tax reform through a divided Congress and 1987 was the year to deal with scandal, Supreme Court nominees. Including Robert Bork and then later Anthony Kennedy, as well as further negotiations with the Soviet Union.

Reagan Foundation: 1984 Presidential Candidate Debate- President Ronald Reagan vs Walter Mondale

Source: Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) debating Walter Mondale (Democrat, Minnesota) in 1984.

"The full-length 1984 Presidential Candidate Debate between President Reagan and Walter Mondale on 10/7/84."

Source:Reagan Foundation 

I just saw this debate Saturday, because I knew I would probably be blogging about it this week. This was the debate that Walter Mondale was remembered for looking really strong and quick. Able to go toe-to-toe with the President of the United States and actually beat him. While Ronald Reagan, looked old, slow and unsure of himself and how to answer the questions. 

President Reagan, clearly didn't look good in the first debate, but didn't look as bad as he tends to be remembered. His answers were somewhat slow and so-forth, but he answered the questions and didn't take any shots from Vice President Mondale lying down. He took them on and threw some back as well.

But Fritz Mondale just looked good the whole night, while admitting that the economy had definitely improved from four years earlier. That the economy wasn't as strong as it needed to be and that we paid a heavy price for the recovery that we were going through. Increases in debt and deficit and: "If we continued to allow those things rise, we would pay for it in high interest and inflation rates later on." He was right, because the Stock Market crashed just three years later in 1987. The economy slowed in 1989 and of course we had a recession in 1990-91.

This was Fritz Mondale's opportunity to get back in the race. He was down 10-15 points going into this debate and took advantage of it. He brought President Reagan's lead down a bit and had he had a great debate in the second debate, he could've prevented the landslide that came and could've made it a very tight race. 

Mondale's second debate wasn't bad, but President Reagan just bounced back and had a very good debate as well with the memorable line when he was asked about his age, suggesting that he might be too old for President, by saying that: "I'm not going to make age an issue in this election and exploit Fritz Mondale's youth an inexperience." 

Whether voters decided that Fritz Mondale would've been a better President or not, what they did decide, was that they liked Ron Reagan more and liked where the country was going and headed and weren't ready to fire President Reagan.

Reagan Foundation: 'State of the Union: President Reagan's State of the Union Speech - 1/26/82'

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) giving the 1982 State of the Union address.

"President Reagan's State of the Union Speech - 1/26/82. For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation ." 

From the Reagan Foundation 

This photo is from the 1982 State of the Union speech that President Reagan delivered to that joint session of Congress, with Vice President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Texas) and Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neal (Democrat, Massachusetts) behind the President. But the video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now. 

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) giving the 1982 State of the Union address.

If you listen to President Reagan’s 1982 State of the Union Speech and then listen to President Obama’s 2009, or 2010 State of the Union speeches, they are similar at least in this sense: "Times are tough, we passed a program to deal with the bad economy. Things are improving a little bit and had we not passed our program, things would be worse had we not done anything.” Same thing was said in 1982 from President Reagan and President Obama said the same thing in 2010. Because the situation was similar, an awful recession and high unemployment in both cases.

The country probably wasn’t buying either speech that much, because President Reagan’s Republican Party dropped thirty plus seats in the House in 1982. And I don’t know how they managed hang on to the Senate. (Maybe that’s a future post) And President Obama’s Democratic Party dropped sixty-two seats in the House in 2010. 

Both Presidents inherited awful economy’s big reason why they were elected President. The economy’s so bad that it wasn’t until late 1983, that the economy began to take off again. With high economic growth and a falling unemployment rate. A big reason why President Reagan was reelected in a landslide.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

James Miller Center: President Ronald Reagan- 'Address on Tax and Budget Legislation August 16, 1982'

Source:James Miller Center- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) Borrow and Spender.

"In this address, President Reagan speaks about the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 or TEFRA and discounts claims that this is "the largest single tax increase in history," stressing that one-third of the increased tax revenue will come from those evading taxes. This legislation represents a departure from the 1981 tax cuts, although Reagan notes it resulted from a difficult compromise."

From the James Miller Center

In the late 1970s 1978 or 79, Republican Senator Bill Roth who was on the Senate Finance Committee and Republican Representative Jack Kemp, over in the House, together introduced the Kemp-Roth bill in the House and Senate. Which was deep tax cuts across the board. 

Supply side tax cuts, meaning there weren’t budget cuts to pay for them. neither Member of Congress was the Chairman, or Ranking Member of their committees. They were also Conservative Republicans serving in a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President. So they both knew that their legislation wouldn’t pass, at least in that Congress.

Kemp-Roth was about the 1980 general election, hoping of course Ronald Reagan is elected President and that Republicans pick up a lot of seats in Congress and even take over the House, or Senate, or both. 

Congressional Republicans picked up a bunch of seats in the 1978 mid-term elections, especially in the House. But they had a long way to go going and Democrats kept control of Congress for 1979-81. But Kemp-Roth help set the stage for the 1980 general elections with high taxes becoming unpopular across the country. With a very weak economy with high unemployment, the recession of 1979-80 and everything else. And Ron Reagan knew this and made Kemp-Roth part of his 1980 presidential campaign.

Ron Reagan becomes President of the United States in a landslide in 1980, Senate Republicans take control of the Senate pick up thirty seats in the House. President Reagan is pretty popular from the beginning, the assassination attempt in 1981 actually helped in a sense. Because his approval rating went up. Senate Republicans had the votes in the Senate, the question was whether they can pass Kemp-Roth in the Democratic House. Which was controlled by Speaker Tip O’Neil who was a very Progressive Democrat (to put it mildly) and didn’t believe in tax cuts. 

The thing that the Reagan Economic Recovery Plan is that the economy goes back into recession in 1982. The Federal Reserve wanted to wipe out inflation and high interest rates, before it did anything else. It wasn't until interest rates and inflation were finally under control by 1984, that the American economy finally took off. And I'm sure the Reagan tax cuts had some impact on the recovery, once inflation and the high interest rates were no longer a major factor in the economy. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

J Branstetter: President Ronald Reagan- Taxes and Budget Deficit: October, 1987

Source:J Branstetter- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) deficits don't matter? (1987) 

"Listen to the camera shutters when he moves his hands, they go crazy. President Ronald Reagan talks about the effects of different types of taxes on the budget deficit and why some taxes have a adverse effect on the economy. This takes place at the White House at a news conference in October 1987." 

From J Branstetter

I just want to point out that I actually have a lot of respect for President Reagan, even though I’m a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat, but I also have serious differences with him and his fiscal policy which at the time would be called supply side economics. 

Supply side economics: you cut taxes deeply without paying for them and increase government spending substantially in defense, but in other areas as well. The theory being that the economic growth as a result of the tax cuts, would pay for the new spending. President Reagan inherited roughly a 40B$ Budget Deficit which even at the time in the late 70s and early 80s was considered small.

And President Carter had an awful economy and President Reagan inherited and awful economy, but left office with a strong economy. With strong economic and job growth, but left office in 1989 with a large Federal debt and deficit and one of the largest debts as a percentage of GDP. As well as deficits of GDP as well, of around 200B$. 

President Reagan’s debt and deficit was so big that he raised taxes in back to back years after the 1981 tax cuts and this is with a Republican Senate as well. President Reagan’s own Vice President called the Reagan tax cuts when he was running for President: “Voodoo Economics”.

Howard Baker, a Republican and the Senate Leader from 1981-85, called the Reagan tax cuts: “A riverboat gamble”. 

David Stockman, President Reagan’s own Director of Budget and Management called the Reagan tax cuts, a big mistake. 

Dick Darman, President Reagan’s other Director of Budget, said that if President Reagan had to choose between balancing the budget by 1984, or ending the Cold War and getting the economy going again, he would pass on a balanced budget. He didn’t want the debt and deficit, but believed that was a price worth paying in oder to accomplish his other goals. You know none of these people are Democrats, they are all Conservative Republicans saying these things. Just not Neoconservatives.

President Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress, or a plan to balanced the budget to Congress. It was never a priority on his part. The economy, the Cold War, reforming Social Security, tax reform and immigration reform were his priorities. All things that he got through Congress as President. 

President Reagan had a very good batting average in Congress as President. Including his ten plus tax hikes he had as President, including middle class tax hikes with the 1983 Social Security reform law. President Reagan increased taxes and spending and because of that he could be labeled a tax and spender.

Tax and spender is generally a label that’s reserved for Social Democrats or Socialists (who are called Progressives or Liberals today) not Conservative Republicans like Ron Reagan. Ron Reagan talked and campaigned like a Conservative, but governed like a pragmatist: “This is what I want to do and if I have to give these things up to accomplish that, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

President Reagan was right to cut taxes, perhaps even as deeply as he did. 70% tax rates in a liberal democracy is too high. But where he failed was by not cutting government spending to make up any difference that economic growth doesn’t pay for. He was also correct to beef up our national defense, but failed to pay for it as well. And that’s why he left office with the debt and deficit he had. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Reagan Foundation: President Reagan's- Address To The Nation On The Economy- 2/05/81

Source:Reagan Foundation- President Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of The United States.

"President Ronald Reagan's address to the nation on the economy. 2/5/81. For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation." 

From the Reagan Foundation

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981 and brought in a Republican controlled Senate for the first time in twenty-six years led by Leader Howard Baker, he had a fairly basic agenda when he came in and was very disciplined in how he accomplished it. 

President Reagan n 1979-80 ran on turning the economy around, get it growing and creating jobs again and end the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His economic plan was centered around cutting taxes and regulations drastically and ending the Cold War by expanding the military in hopes of bringing the Russians to the negotiating table. And he didn’t really care about how this was accomplished as long as he did it.

As much as Ron Reagan spoke as a Conservative as a private citizen, he was a pragmatist as a Governor and President. He knew for everything that he was going to get out of Congress, where Democrats controlled the House for all eight years and the Senate for two years and had a large minority in the Senate for six years, he knew he was going to have to give some things to get what he wanted. 

Tip O’Neil a Democrat who was Speaker of the House for six of President Reagan’s eight years as President, both men who have almost nothing in common other than being Irish-American. Worked very well together.

President Reagan also worked very well with Robert Byrd who was the Democratic Leader of the Senate for President Reagan’s entire Presidency. Six years as Minority Leader and two years as Leader and he had a very good working relationship with Leader Baker as well. 

As ideological as Ron Reagan might of sounded and Howard Baker and him had a lot in common politically, Leader Baker was Leader of the Senate and was a legislator more than anything else. And knew he had to work with Bob Byrd, Speaker O’Neil and President Reagan in order to get anything done. 

President Reagan was a great politician and was very pragmatic and knew he had to work with Congressional Democrats as well as his own Congressional Leadership to pass anything out of Congress.

As much as President Reagan spoke about the need for fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and a Balance Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the opposite was true. When he became President back in 1981, he inherited an awful economy from President Carter. But a small budget deficit of 40B$ or so and a manageable Federal debt of 32.5% of GDP, or 4.55T$, or less than a third of today’s Federal debt. 

When President Reagan left office in 1989, he left President George H.W. Bush with a Federal deficit of around 200B$ and a Federal debt of of 53.1% of GDP or 7.43T$ in today’s terms. Still small compared with the Federal debt of today.

When President Reagan became President in 1981, the Federal budget was 22.7% of GDP and when he left office in 1989 the Federal budget was 27.3% of GDP. 

Ronald Reagan did not run for President to balance the budget, but to make the economy strong, get the Federal Government off our backs as he put it and end the Cold War with Russia. And if that means running large budget deficits debts and that’s a small price to pay for a strong economy and ending the Cold War, he thought that price was worth paying. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Conservative Will: President Ronald Reagan- On Taxes in 1986

Source:The Conservative Will- President Ronald W. Reagan, Oval Office address on tax reform, in 1986.

"President Reagan on taxes." 

From The Conservative Will

A Liberal Democrat could’ve basically given the same speech on tax reform that Ron Reagan a Conservative Republican gave. I mean Jack Kennedy could’ve given the same speech that President Reagan gave, or it would’ve sounded very similar. And he probably gave a similar speech when he pushed for deep tax cuts in the early 1960s. The American tax system is so complicated that accountants hire other accountants to fill out their Federal taxes and tax lawyers hire other tax lawyers to come up with tax loopholes for them. These might sound like jokes, but they’re not far off.

The Federal Government has gotten to the point and this has gone on for at least thirty years if not longer, that if they want Americans to do something that they believe in their “brilliant wisdom”, is in the best interest for the country, they write a tax credit to encourage people to do it. Whether its education for their kids, or giving to charity, or planning for their own retirement. 

And there’s a lot more and it’s not that these causes aren’t worthwhile, because a lot of them are. But they all get written in the tax code, that’s gotten so big, that you now have to be a super weightlifter in order to pick the damn thing up and walk around with it. Actually a lot football players now stay in shape by power-lifting the tax code.

Insomniacs now read the tax code night after night and I should know I’m one of them. It helps them go to sleep and plus reading that book, you never run out of reading material. Because Congress writes a new tax law almost every day. It’s basically the only thing the Senate does now a days besides general speeches. Thats another place that insomniacs go to when they need to get some sleep, the Senate to listen to hours of general speeches. I almost feel sorry for the Senate typist who has to write all these speeches down hours and hours of them. 

The tax code is so big now, that you need a pickup truck or a minivan, without seats to move it around. It is something like 70,000 pages the population of Wilmington, Delaware and don’t ask me how I know that. In summary too much free time.

To be totally serious for a minute, (like totally!) or as serious as I can be and this should only take about a minute and if I run out of time, I’ll ask a Senator to yield to me, the Senator could probably use some water, or catch their breath and now I’ll be serious for real: but seriously what we should do instead is throw out the current tax code. If we can find a trash dump big enough to carry it and will take it and reform our tax code. 

We should move to a tax system that lowers the rates and broadens the base and doesn’t raise taxes on anyone who can’t afford to pay more. And doesn’t raise taxes enough to discourage wealth creation. 

Lower rates on most, individuals and business’s, but throw out all the tax loopholes, or most of them. And give people more freedom to spend their own money that they worked for the way they want to. Instead of Uncle Sam (who’s no ones favorite uncle unless you’re a Socialist) telling us how to spend our own money that we made on our own. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.