About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Varney, Moore revive Reagan tax cut myth to attack Obama's stimulus

June 29, 2010 7:34 pm ET — 36 Comments

Stuart Varney and Steve Moore claimed that that President Obama's stimulus plan has failed, while President Reagan stopped the recession of the early 1980s with tax cuts. In fact, economists have said the stimulus helped promote economic recovery, and that the recession was ended under Reagan primarily due to federal interest rate cuts.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Moore, Varney claim Obama stimulus failed to stop recession while Reagan tax cuts succeeded

Moore: Obama should "do what Reagan did, you cut the tax rates," because stimulus has failed. On the June 29 edition of Fox News' Your World, The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore stated that "the problem is we're not leading. We led under Ronald Reagan and showed the world how to get out of this crisis by cutting taxes, deregulating." Guest host Stuart Varney then asked, "Is the present stimulus plan a failure?" Moore replied, "I don't think there's any question about it. I think the only person in America who doesn't believe that is Paul Krugman." Moore added that Obama's "Plan B" should be to "do what Reagan did -- cut those tax rates."

Varney: The stimulus "has not worked," Reagan stopped recession by "unleash[ing] the power of private enterprise." After Democratic strategist Julian Epstein cited several statistics demonstrating that the stimulus has had a positive impact, Varney stated, "We spent a trillion dollars and it has not worked," and asked Epstein to "agree" that it "has not worked as advertised. It was advertised at keeping the unemployment rate at 8 percent. It has not worked as advertised." After Epstein again cited increases in GDP and employment and commented that "[w]e have had in one year of economic recovery ... the most significant economic turnaround in the last 50 years," Varney stated: "When Ronald Reagan took office in January of 1981, interest rates were around 15, 16 percent, the prime was at 21 percent. Unemployment was 10 percent. Inflation was at double digits. That was a serious situation, very serious. And what did he do? He unleashed the power of private enterprise, of individuals. And we went on, straight on to prosperity for 20 years. That's what happened. ... Obama has done exactly the opposite. He has used government money. Government has been the agent by which he tries to refresh the economy, and it's failed. The economy is already slowing down again."

Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery

Wall Street Journal: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."

ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."

NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."

USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:

President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

Independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised employment over what would have happened otherwise

CEA: As of first quarter of 2010, ARRA raised employment "by between 2.2 and 2.8 million." In its third quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the first quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.2 and 2.8 million. These estimates are similar to those of other analysts, and are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2009:Q4."

CBO estimates job impact of between 1.2 and 2.8 million. CBO estimated in May that as of the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus package "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million" and "[i]ncreased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise." CBO also estimated that the unemployment rate would be 0.7 percent to 1.5 percent higher today without the stimulus package.

IHS/Global Insight estimates job impact of 1.7 million "by the first quarter of 2010." PolitiFact.com stated on February 17 that "[u]sing updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved by the first quarter of 2010." The CEA report also cites this estimate from IHS/Global Insight.

Moody's Economy.com estimates job impact of 1.9 million by the first quarter of 2010. The PolitiFact.com post further stated that "[u]sing updated estimates provided to PolitiFact ... Moody'seconomy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved" by the first quarter of 2010. The CEA report also cited this estimate from Moody's Economy.com.

Macroeconomic Advisers estimates job impact of 1.5 million in first quarter of 2010. The CEA report stated that Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 1.46 million as of the first quarter of 2010, citing an analysis provided to CEA.

Economists attribute Reagan-era recovery to interest rate cuts

Federal interest rates dropped throughout early 1980s recession, but are already currently at near-record lows. The recession to which Varney and Moore referred began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982. The federal funds rate peaked at 20 percent in late May 1981 and dropped to 9.5 percent by mid-October 1982, while the discount rate peaked at 14 percent in early May 1981 and dropped to 9.5 percent in mid-October 1982. By contrast, the current federal funds rate is between zero percent and .25 percent, while the primary discount rate is at 0.75 percent and the secondary discount rate is at 1.25 percent.

CBO: "Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin." An August 1983 CBO report, titled "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," concluded that "[l]ower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin" 

The Economy At Mid-1983

Recovery started in December 1982 from the deepest postwar recession, the second of two since 1980. Both recessions were brought on by monetary restriction aimed at bringing inflation under control. Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin. Real GNP grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter and at an 8.7 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 1983.

The report also concluded: "A dramatic decline in inflation, a fall in interest rates from levels that were extraordinarily high to levels that are merely high, and the stock market boom have contributed to the improvement in economic conditions."

Reagan economist suggest interest rate cuts drove economic recovery. Michael Mussa, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in an essay for American Economic Policy in the 1980s (University of Chicago Press, 1995) that when the Federal Reserve cut the discount rate a half percentage point on July 20, 1982, it "signal[ed] the beginning of what would become a four-and-a-half-year period of quite rapid monetary expansion. During this period, interest rates, both short and long term, would be driven significantly lower, and the U.S. economy would substantially recover from the devastation of both inflation and recession."

Krugman: "Right now, the interest rate is zero. The Fed can't rescue us this time, and that's why we can't do the things we did in the '80s." Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said during the February 6, 2009, edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe that "in 1982, when the economy was deeply depressed, the Federal Reserve said, 'OK, we've got to do something about this,' and they cut interest rates from 13 percent to around 7 percent and the economy took off." Krugman continued: "Right now, the interest rate is zero. The Fed can't rescue us this time, and that's why we can't do the things we did in the '80s. We have to have an approach that harks back to the things that worked very well in the first four years of the New Deal until Franklin Roosevelt was persuaded to go orthodox all over again."

Similarly, in a January 14, 2009, Rolling Stone article headlined "Letter to Obama," Krugman wrote:

Compare the situation right now with the one back in the 1980s, when [Paul] Volcker [then chairman of the Federal Reserve] turned the economy around. All the Fed had to do back then was print a bunch of dollars (OK, it actually credited the money to the accounts of private banks, but it amounts to the same thing) and then use those dollars to buy up U.S. government debt. This drove interest rates down: When Volcker decided that the economy needed a pick-me-up, he was quickly able to drive the interest rate on Treasury bills from 13 percent down to eight percent. Lower interest rates on government debt, in turn, quickly drove down rates on mortgages and business borrowing. People started spending again, and within a few months the economy had gone from slump to boom. Economists call this process -- from the Fed's decision to print more money to the resulting pickup in spending, jobs and incomes -- the "monetary transmission mechanism." And in the 1980s that mechanism worked just fine.

This time, however, the transmission mechanism is broken.

First of all, while the Fed can still print money, it can't drive interest rates down. Why? Because those interest rates are already about as low as they can go. As I write this letter, the interest rate on Treasury bills is 0.005 percent -- that is, zero. And you can't push rates lower than that.

Obama did cut taxes for Americans as part of stimulus package

The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $288 billion in tax relief. As Media Matters for America has noted, the recovery act contained $288 billion in tax relief, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, an annual credit of $400 per individual or $800 for families. In addition, the recovery act included a temporary increase in the earned income tax credit, a temporary increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit, an increase in the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and tax incentives for businesses.

William Gale: "[T]axes are literally at their lowest in decades." CBS News reported on April 15 that "taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution." CBS News further reported:

"The relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax policy is often quite tenuous," Gale told Hotsheet. "The rise of the Tea Party at at time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard to understand."

Bruce Bartlett: "[F]ederal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president." Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, wrote on March 19 that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year":

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by oscar the grouch (June 29, 2010 7:42 pm ET)
      4 6
      It's hard to imagine that no Taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased......... Our effective tax rate went up almost a full point on basically the same income and deductions as 2008 (in fact a little lower as we took a pay cut in one job and had no increase in the other, no inflation, you know). Plus sales taxes, real estate taxes, sin taxes, etc. Ah, but everything is so wonderful!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thaneb (June 29, 2010 7:55 pm ET)
        4 2
        Straw man top and bottom with penultimate dash of non-sequitur.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (June 29, 2010 7:59 pm ET)
        3  
        Your tool of choice
        [http://www.thegoldenmean.com/images/technique/crop/crop_scale.gif]
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rumpleteasermom (June 29, 2010 8:03 pm ET)
        4 1
        My taxes went up. I'm just not stupid enough to think it is Obama's fault. I understand the effect my mortgage interest diminishing and my children aging has on my taxes.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by indigo1968 (June 30, 2010 11:13 am ET)
          4 1
          The GOP is truly a retarded half-trick pony when it comes to economics. So tell me, idiots - how do tax cuts stimulate the economy when spending cuts don't accompany them?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by riverdog (June 30, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
              2
            thats the gop plank. reduce taxes AND reduce spending. the scream that 24/7. by the way it works, although it depends on how much decrease taxes and how much and what decrease in spending. it works a lot better than the lefts tax high spend higher.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Disputed Zone (June 30, 2010 4:28 pm ET)
              2  
              The Republicans sure say they want to reduce spending, but whenever they have the chance, they do the opposite. It's their two Santa Clauses strategy. How many times do they get to pull this con before you guys catch on?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by jason10006 (June 29, 2010 7:46 pm ET)
      5  
      "It'ss hard to imagine that no Taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased"

      Uhhhh, that is not what it says, quote miner:


      "No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies."

      Notice the part you left out? Your bit ignores this crucial element. State and local taxes as well as whatever deductions you had would greatly influence your overall tax rate.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by phredicles (June 29, 2010 11:20 pm ET)
        6  
        My income tax for 2009 went down as a direct result of President Obama's policies. I just think that bears mentioning.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jose4 (June 29, 2010 9:10 pm ET)
      2 8
      If you take money out of the private sector and put it into the public (aka government sector) what do you think will happen?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by politeradical (June 29, 2010 11:09 pm ET)
      10 1
      Under Ronald Regan we played a dangerous game of recklessly antagonizing the Soviet Union. He hit the lottery of happening to be president when the USSR imploded.

      Republican fiscal policy has shown us that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy so much as they just run up the deficit, since the Reps love spending money, they just put it on a different ledger right W.?.

      Given the choice, I'd much rather have a tax and spend party than a cut taxes and still spend while lying about it party.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jarossiter (June 30, 2010 9:13 am ET)
        4  
        Reagan was sworn into office in 1981 - and 22 months LATER the unemployment rate was 10.4%

        How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?
        1/1981 - unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.
        1/1981 - 7.4%
        3/1981 - 7.4%
        4/1981 - 7.2%
        5/1981 - 7.5%
        6/1981 - 7.5%
        7/1981 - 7.2%
        8/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% & said unemployment would DROP to 6.9%
        9/1981 - 7.6%
        10/1981 - 7.9%
        11/1981 - 8.3%
        12/1981 - 8.5%

        1/1982 - 8.6%
        2/1982 - 8.9%
        3/1982 - 9.0%
        4/1982 - 9.3%
        5/1982 - 9.4%
        6/1982 - 9.6%
        7/1982 - 9.8%
        8/1982 - 9.8%
        9/1982 - 10.1%
        10/1982 - 10.4%
        11/1982 - 10.8%
        12/1982 - 10.8%

        1/1983 - 10.4%
        2/1983 - 10.4%
        3/1983 - 10.3%
        4/1983 - 10.3%
        5/1983 - 10.1%
        6/1983 - 10.1%
        7/1983 - 9.4%
        6/1983 - 9.5%
        7/1983 - 9.4%
        8/1983 - 9.5%
        9/1983 - 9.2%
        10/1983 - 8.8%
        11/1983 - 8.5%
        12/1983 - 8.3%

        1/1984 - 8.0%
        2/1984 - 7.8%

        Took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8%.

        ***Stock Market C R A S H E D in 1987.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (June 30, 2010 9:57 am ET)
          5  
          Good chart. Plus there was the S&L crash which neatly mirrored the recent banking crash. And it also involved the Bush family. If I didn't know any better I would swear there was a pattern there.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by YouTubeJEFF9K (June 30, 2010 7:13 am ET)
      7 1
      Many, if not most, if not all of our problems are related to Reaganomics.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by CrashGordon (June 30, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
        2  
        Reaganomics/voodoo economics/supply-side economics is nothing more than an attempt to give merit to a scheme that's merely designed to reward the wealthy right-wing base who elected those who are pushing it. The lower and middle class earners just aren't bright enough in matters of economics to realize that they will never benefit from it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by riverdog (June 30, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
          2
        wow ronnie's quite the boogieman huh. yes he spent way to much(and in the wrong areas) on the military but overall reducing taxes was the right thing to do. taxes are like goldilocks, to high stifles growth, to low, not enought revenue.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by YouTubeJEFF9K (July 01, 2010 12:30 am ET)
             
          Reaganomics re-distributed tax burdens so that, eventually, all types of taxes taken into account, the wealthy paid less, and the non-wealthy paid more.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (June 30, 2010 3:48 pm ET)
      1  
      Moore is a Tax Cut Zombie.

      CUT TAXES, CUT TAXES!!

      Hey, dog food for brains: WE DID CUT TAXES UNDER BUSH. IT DID NOT STIMULATE A DAMN THING EXCEPT THE DEBT.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 30, 2010 5:13 pm ET)
        2  
        For all of the RIGHTIES worshiping of tax cuts,they can't answer the question if those tax cuts are so crucial to stimulating the economy, then how come that job creation under BOY GEORGE BUSH(3 million jobs in 8 years) was the WORST since TRUMAN?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by riverdog (June 30, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
            3
          probably because presidents have little to do with job creation
          Report Abuse
          • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 30, 2010 7:11 pm ET)
            2  
            craig, Presidential polocies do effect job creation.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by riverdog (June 30, 2010 8:30 pm ET)
                 
              a little, they can also screw it up. most jobs come the private sector not the goverment. that does'nt mean give the corperations free rein, just realize where the jobs come from.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 30, 2010 9:50 pm ET)
                1  
                The problem is that the modern day REPUBLICANS believe in just that, giving the corporations a free rein.
                Explain this , between 1992-2000 under CLINTON and a REPUBLICAN congress around 23 million jobs were created,while under BOY GEORGE and an even more REPUBLICAN congress the economy created only 3 million jobs. Hell of a record to be proud of.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by riverdog (July 01, 2010 10:49 am ET)
                    1
                  clinton was the benefactor of the internet and PC boom, all done by the private sector. clinton did not do anything to create jobs, he just sat back and the revenue poured in.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 01, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
                    1  
                    that dosent answer my question if tax cuts are so great than how come they didnt creat more jobs under BOY GEORGE?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jose4 (July 01, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
                        1
                      You never know what would happen if you do or don't do something if you didn't do it.

                      Just like the stimulus and unemployment not going over 8%.

                      More regulation and higher taxes are your answer to every problem on the earth.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 01, 2010 5:03 pm ET)
                        1  
                        As opposed to less regulation and less taxes, You see where that got us? It has been the REPUBLICAN creed for the last 30+ years that cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating business=job growth and job creation, not necessisarily so. It didn't happen under BOY GEORGE and it didn't happen under REAGAN until the FED started lowering interest rates and that didn't happen until around 20 months had passed from when his tax cuts were enacted.All the rich and most business men do with those tax cuts is put it in their pockets or in offshore accounts. they don't invest the cuts to create jobs. Wake up and tear yourself away from that RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA.It would do you some good.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Jose4 (July 01, 2010 8:36 pm ET)
                            1
                          You're not going to legislate corruption out of existence no matter how many laws you pass and how high taxes you charge.

                          Left wing/right wing what difference does it make?

                          You're the one hung up on propaganda.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 01, 2010 11:37 pm ET)
                            1  
                            No sir,you are hung up on that RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA.Maybe you can't legislate corruption out of existence but you can make a dent in it and we need to keep on to protect the people from it. What the current bunch of REPUBLICANS want is LASSEZ FAIRE type of capitalism with no restraints.The equivalent would be if you take the traffic system in this country and remove all rules.No more speed limits,no more stop and yield signs,think of the fun that would bring. That is the mindset of these people,no restraints on the rich and big business and screw the little guy.This i am fundamentaly opposed to and will continue to speak against.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Jose4 (July 02, 2010 7:51 am ET)
                                1
                              You are the one shouting with a viral bias.

                              And if you are honestly trying to be half intelligent, it's laissez faire.

                              With more laws and regulations you are making it almost impossible for the non-rich to achieve greatness. The rich will always have lawyers to side-step the burden of new regulations.


                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 02, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
                                1  
                                Just because the Rich and the Corporations have lawyers we should stop trying to do what's right?That may be fine for you but not for me. I stand by what I said and what I believe in. We just disagree.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Jose4 (July 02, 2010 7:32 pm ET)
                                  1 1
                                  If you want to do what's right, stop passing thousands of pages of regulations that are a make work program for lawyers.

                                  As I said before, there will be corruption regardless of what regulations are passed.

                                  Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.