European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - August 11, 1991, Darmstadt, Hesse Sunday August 11, a a 1991 the stars and stripes Page 13 commentary David Brode reaganomics worked to political perfection ten years ago this week president Reagan signed into Law the budget and tax Cut measures that constituted the heart of reaganomics a a revolution in fiscal policy that then Senate majority Leader Howard h. Baker jr., r-tenn., properly labelled As a a riverboat Reagan was on vacation at Rancho Del Cielo his California Mountain Retreat. As he put his signature on the two measures that he said a represent a turnaround of almost half a Century of economic and social policy the fog rolled in cutting visibility to less than 50 feet a a Nice Symbol of the Uncertain effects of this bold venture. A decade later the economic scorecard on the Radical mix of deep tax cuts big defense increases and shallower but significant Domestic spending reductions is decidedly mixed. But politically reaganomics has worked almost to perfection for the Republican party As for the economics the benefits include a remarkably Long run of economic growth from late 1982 to mid-1990, unmarred by serious inflation but bracketed by two recessions the deep dive of 198182 and the shallower 1990-91 dip now supposedly ending. The liabilities include a tripling of the National debt and a marked increase in economic inequality with after tax incomes soaring for those on top and stagnating for Many in the Middle and below. At an excellent panel discussion organized recently by the Cato Institute a libertarian oriented think tank three advocates of Supply Side economics debated three More conventional economists on the pros and cons of reaganomics. After the usual barrage of conflicting statistics some surprising areas of agreement emerged. Supply siders Arthur Laffer Larry Kudlow and Richard Rahn a authors and advocates of the Reagan tax Cut a and critics Rudolph Penner Robert Shapiro and Robert Mcintyre agreed that a a tax Cut was needed in 1981 to offset the rising tax Burden imposed on people pushed into Ever higher tax brackets by inflation. A but the actual Cut was excessive and imbalanced. In addition to the desirable rate cuts corporations were Given billions of dollars Worth of unjustified new tax Breaks. Old loopholes were left untouched a and would remain so until the 1986 tax Bill. Finally in All the concent a Anthony Lewis Tion on reducing income tax rates nothing was done then or later to relieve the rising Burden of payroll taxes on working and Middle class families. A these excesses along with the failure by Congress and the president to discipline spending resulted in severe chronic deficits that hobble the Economy today. Beyond these areas of agreement both sides made some telling Points. Laffer noted that the inflationary effects predicted by critics when Reagan signed the 1981 tax Cut have simply failed to materialize. Kudlow said the Job growth of the �?T80s, without inflation is the envy of Many other nations. But Shapiro pointed out that reaganomics was less successful a in creating wealth than in reallocating it a boosting the real income of the top 1 percent of taxpayers five times As much As that of average taxpayers. And Penner Drew a rueful laugh when he repeated a line he had used in 1981 a the Good news is we reduced the disincentives to savings and work. The bad news is we can to afford the Good news a not at the Price of what turned out to be $1.5 trillion of additional debt. However mixed the economic results reaganomics has been a political 10-strike for the republicans. The reasons were outlined by my Washington Post colleague Thomas b. Edsall in a remarkably prescient analysis the Day Reagan signed the Bills into Law. First Edsall said by cutting income taxes 25 percent across the Board and indexing tax brackets to offset inflation a this tax Bill will. Force a deficit minded Congress to make even More spending cuts. In effect placing a fiscal noose on democrats that will not be loosened even if the party regains control of the Federal second Edsall wrote by slashing Many of the taxes paid by business and High in come people while leaving payroll taxes to grow the 1981 tax Bill a put the democrats in a quandary. To build Back programs for some of their constituents they will have to increase taxes on others. To help welfare mothers they will have to tax factory workers. There is no political Joy in third he said by cutting rates and indexing the tax brackets against inflation a the republicans moved to supplant the democrats As the tax champions of the Middle every one of those judgments has been borne out by the past 10 years. Edsall a Story quoted former sen. Thomas f. Eagleton d-mo., As saying the Reagan tax Bill is a so inherently unfair that it will stand As a Bedrock for the rebirth of the democratic but 10 years later the democrats Are still trying to wave the Brinner of tax fairness with no indication that the voters Are yet believing them. C the Washington pos Bush turns Turtle on Protection of wetlands a my position on wetlands is straightforward a George Bush said in his 1988 Campaign. A fall existing wetlands no matter How Small should be when he became president Bush appeared to carry out that Promise. The environmental Protection Agency and three other Federal agencies issued regulations protecting about 100 million acres of Marsh tidal zones and other moist lands from destructive development. But last week under pressure from real estate developers and Oil and mining companies the Bush administration turned Turtle. It moved to open millions of wetland acres to development. It did so by a political device wonderful in its ingenuity and hypocrisy. The administration simply redefined the word the new definition turned As much As 10 million acres of wetlands into Ordinary ground outside the protective rules. The device is reminiscent of one in to Wuthe the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta that spoofs the House of lords. The Peers Are outwitted by a band of fairies with whom they fall in love. A fairy Law provides that a every fairy must die who marries a when the fairies disclose they have All secretly married Peers their formidable fairy Queen wants to carry out the Law but worries that she a a can to Slaughter the whole then the lord Chancellor says a allow me As an old equity craftsman to make a suggestion. The thing is really quite simple. Let it stand that every fairy shall die who Doe so to marry a mortal and you Are out of your difficulty at once a and they All live happily Ever after. The Bush administration trick with wetland regulations is of a similarly neat character. But it is not funny and americans will not live happily As a result. Not us and not our children. The fish and shellfish and Birds we value the very water we drink will All suffer. Wetlands Are among the most important ingredients of the environment. They Are nourishes and protectors of life. They filter water As it flows from land into streams. They feed aquatic life and provide habitats for migratory Birds. They Are also extremely fragile. Some fill or a few houses will kill the function once performed by a Marsh As a source of life. Using marginal wetlands for farming also has an Adverse environmental effect. The Runoff of agricultural chemicals is a major Factor in the deterioration of water Quality. Farm interests were one of the forces behind the sabotage of the wetlands rules. As originally issued the regulations included some cultivated land especially in the Midwest and Farmers had a legitimate reason to complain that the rules made such land unsaleable. The regulations could have been amended without gutting them to meet the Farmers objections. But other interests saw an Opportunity. The big Oil companies mining and real estate firms formed a lobbying group called the National wetlands coalition. Using the logo of a Bird flying Over a Marsh this organization set out to gut wetlands Protection. The lobbying Effort was extraordinarily Well financed a and effective. Congressmen besieged introduced Bills to undo the wetlands regulations. It was a familiar Washington struggle Between the concentrated Power of special interests and the unfocused general Public interest. The Public interest was very Large in this instance now and for the future. But the Public on the whole was uninformed and unrepresented. In those circumstances one person above All was in a position to speak Lor the Public interest the president of the United states. But president Bush did not resist the special interest lobbying. A White House task Force on wetlands headed by a pro business presidential assistant pushed for weakening of the regulations. In the end Epa administrator William k. Reilly decided that he must give ground or be crushed. The new narrow definition of wetlands was published for comment Friday. Unless the Public miraculously understands what is being done to it and rises up we shall have highways and shopping malls and Golf courses where wetlands used to be. C the new York times
