Democrat, Tulsa County (2/22/2009 8:16:33 AM)

Yes KTC, it GAVE us social security. Before social security, to be old was virtually synonymous with being poor for working class Americans. Today, the elderly are NOT among the poorest demographic groups within America.

It is an absolute lie to say that one must live to 98 to get back from the SSA what one has put into it. Everyone should take the statement sent to us by SSA annually. It shows our individual contribution history. Add the total contributions and divide by the monthly amount estimated on the statement for the age in which you intend to retire. It takes only a few years to get back all of our individual contributions. Double it to see how long it takes to get back the contributions of our employers. Unless you intend to retire when you are in your mid to late 80s, there is no way that you will have to live to be 98 to get back your contributions.

Only the revisionists belonging to the notorious "negationist" school of historiography could say that the New Deal was a failure. It provided relief for the unemployed, reforms to guard against a recurrence of a great depression, and although its stimulative effect was less than needed to end the depression, only a fool or a liar would say that conditions were worse under FDR than under Hoover. The only period of contraction during the New Deal was in 1937, when FDR cut spending on works programs in order to try to reduce the deficits. After restoring the stimulative spending, the economy began growing again and full recovery was achieved during World War II when Keynesian "pump-priming" finally reached the level necessary to restart American industries.

Even my conservative students have expressed amazement at the brazen attempt to rewrite history by the current crop of congressional Republicans. It is no wonder that the young of the early 21st century are turned-off by conservatism and are flocking to Obama and other progressive politicians as they make their decisions about their political affiliations.

Democrat, Tulsa County (2/22/2009 8:57:40 AM)

KTC:

The text information comes from the history text book that is chosen from a list compiled by very conservative Oklahomans. The other information comes from the statements and press releases made by the current Republican congressional representatives. The two sources of information do not match. The New Deal was infinetly more successful than was Hoover's Trickle-Down approach.

The YOUNG are among the poorest demographic groups in America. The elderly, AS A GROUP, are financially better off than the youngest Oklahomans or Americans. One is more likely to be living in poverty if he/she is under the age of 18 than if he/she is over the age of 65. Those facts are easily gleaned from the U.S. census. Again, our text books have tables, charts, and graphs which use the census information to help us teach these FACTS to our students. Your assertions don't change the facts, my friend.

Obama has a accomplished a great deal. Haven't you heard-- He was elected President of the United States of America. LOL!!!!!!!

I am indeed a teacher. I hold two degrees and I am certified to teach. What is your point? Did you get out your last SSA statment and do the math? I didn't think so. If you can't do the math, just go see the people at the SSA building in Tulsa. Take a number and someone there will help you. I took a graduate course with one of those SSA employees. He told me that people typically get back all their own contributions in less than 5 years. I know that it is true for me. (I can do the math).

The Reaper, Hells Gate (2/22/2009 9:17:38 AM)

Dem

You have to remember KTC doesn't read he only listens to Rush.

Tulsaboyw, tulsa (2/22/2009 9:37:31 AM)

Um,, according to FDR & his chief economist themselves they found that the newdeal failed at least on unemployment. Thats according to the very ones who crafted the newdeal package.
Same one stated that the NEWDEAL was in part expansion of hoover ideas already in place.

As far as textbooks for k-12, I hate to mention this but when I was in school k-12 several of the history books had history even wrong on both older & newer history, and it wasnt till College and/or library research that I found the teacher & the books were wrong, But I still had to submit a paper detailing history as teacher saw it instead of the real history.

Oh and the # of degrees is irrelevant, I have had good & bad teachers with even more education than the above person.

As far as getting back their $$, true, but in my moms case, she is 20+ years past that point and has been living off you & me since.
But she also gets French SS (two ss chks) per month.

I wont dispute your figures, but your comemnt about history is not neccesarily true.
And the 'teacher/degree' comment is not relevant.

My worst teacher ever, had 3 degrees (one in history) and was the most worthless teacher in both as a person and as a history teacher.

As it is as a 'sometimes' teacher myself, I have rarely used textbooks and tend to use the direct sources when possible.

Ie; If we study Jefferson, we use only jefferson material or very high reliable direct sources of him.

Which usually means ignoring political or religious sources since both tend to skew reality.

Tulsaboyw, tulsa (2/22/2009 9:45:11 AM)

And in the case of the comment above on fdr, thats per a memo exchanged between the two and is in a few books...

This was research done by my brother but I reconfirmed it because I thought it was faked.

While much of the NEWDEAL can be said 'success' it depends on defination to me.

Such as SS is one of the many reasons that family's are not as together as then.

Also government intrusion in our lives is a direct reason why education has suffered over the decades and why there is so much confusion about prayer in schools.

Tulsaboyw, tulsa (2/22/2009 9:48:05 AM)

Especially since it was never done away with.
One can pray all they want as long as it is not led by a teacher or government official.

Note that while a teacher is not a gov official they are indirectly exactly that per the legal & actual aspects of federal control on edcuation.

As a individual I will defend violently the right of anyone who wants to pray 'as a individual' but will equally fight any group leadership by teachers/gov people.

And btw, I am agnostic married to a christian.
But then I deplore teachers who cant seem to seperate reality from textbooks.

Having seen too many textbooks with the information completely wrong it surprises me that its still going on.

Democrat, Tulsa County (2/22/2009 9:56:53 AM)

T-boyw:

What is your point? Hoover's policies failed. Unemployment kept climbing to the end of his presidency. He did what our current Republicans advocate and conditions worsened. The many work-relief programs of the New Deal provided employment in the public sector for millions of people who were neglected by Hoover. Those are the FACTS, bud!

Tulsaboyw, tulsa (2/22/2009 10:09:29 AM)

Um in my own case, to get all that i put in would be 42 years.

assuming age 70 (max age 66.8m 1423) but age 70 $1802/mth.

In my wifes case who has consistantly earned 10% of what i have made, at age 70 would get $943/mth and it will take her 18+ years to get what she paid in.
In both our cases we figure on waiting till age 70, since i also have some pension annuities that will be handy from 65 on.

Point being is that in most cases per what SSA told me themselves it depends on who & what you are talking about, many in social security will not live long enough to get what they paid in, and thats even according to SSA & politicians on both sides.

Tulsaboyw, tulsa (2/22/2009 10:17:08 AM)

Hoovers policies helped cause the recessiona and even get it started (deperession) and the protectionist policies deepened it).

FDR came along and left most of the hoover ideas in place and repackged them as NEWDEAL.

Also most of the work programs were not jobs.
they were in fact, work projects to keep people busy, and per my own uncles who lived thru these projects, many were even unpaid.

But like he said much of the work was for pride or for 'having something to do'.

Fdr had also regrented that the work programs didnt do as intended and kept workers past one project. And thats per FDR also.

The neglect by hoover is correct however, but it was also that unemployment was higher under FDR in later years than under Hoover initially, at least till the protectionist stuff kicked in.

Im not defending hoover here, Im saying that both are to blame while Hoover is the beginning of the problem and helped start it, he isnt the one who extended the depression.

Btw, that wasnt employment but 'make-work' projects and was rarely real jobs of any sort.

It was WWII that in fact did what was needed overall.

Im not disputing what you say about bush (at least from 2006 on), though if you had excluded the war aspect of bush, the economy was in fact doing good till 2005/2006 timeframe.

Naturally the war should be included and that makes bush definately to blame for the beginning of it.

But then we can still point to the mortgage meltdown as the primary cause of the start of our current problems.

And that is a mix of both parties with demos refusing to admit that they blocked reform efforts because they didnt see then what everybody else saw (but they do now).

Thats the point.

The Real Joe Dolty, TULSA (2/22/2009 10:27:45 AM)

All economists agree that the depression didn't end until WWII.

Class dismissed.

Mike W, Tulsa (2/22/2009 10:36:45 AM)

Then:
Roosevelt's New Deal

Now:
Obama's New Hope
Mike W
Tulsa+
Who thinks history will adopt the "New Hope" term

Democrat, Tulsa County (2/22/2009 11:24:52 AM)

tboyw:

You make less money than Oklahoma teachers if you will only draw $1802 at age 70. I am sorry about that.

Now, what you failed to provide was the total amount of money that you have paid into SS during those 42 years. (Don't forget to add your latest contribution, times the number of years until you are 70). Do that and then divide that amount by $1802 and you will see how many (few) months it will take to recover what you have paid into the system.

Most people seem to think that they have paid in 100s of thousands of dollars into the system, when in reality, they have actually paid about $40,000 - $60,000 into the system. (Most of it in the last 1/3 of their working years). $1802 X 12 = $21,624/ year. If you have paid $60,000 into social security, it will take just under 3 years to get back what you have paid into the system.

Of course many people will not get back what they paid into SS. When one reads the obituaries, it is obvious that many people (especially in Oklahoma) die young.

I won't try to teach you any further about the reality of the New Deal. You made up your mind about what to believe a long time ago.

elyocp, (2/22/2009 1:21:09 PM)

All that stupid me can see is Roosevelt had to clean-up Hoover's mess. And Obama has to clean-up Bush's mess. The republicans are greed driven to the point that they don't care who they financially hurt, including themselves. It's like a brain disease.

Karl, Tulsa (2/22/2009 2:30:06 PM)

Tulsaboyw said: "unemployment was higher under FDR in later years than under Hoover initially"

Under Hoover, from 1929 to 1932 the unemployment rate went from 3.14% to 23.53%. There were 11 million more unemployed in 1932 than in 1929.
Under Roosevelt, from 1933 to 1941 the unemployment rate went from 24.75% to 9.66% There were 7 million more employed in 1941 than in 1933.
All numbers from the Census bureau.

Daddyof2, Cheyenne, WY (2/22/2009 7:15:13 PM)

There is no real consensus on whether it was the New Deal or World War II that brought us out of the Great Depression. I personally believe that it is WWII myself because in order to sustain our effort many jobs were created, many soldiers were employed to fight and much industry had to be running full steam.

However, to say that either one is the cold-hard fact is a little irresponsible while there is still so much disagreement on the fact. This is an issue, like man-made global warming, that goes strictly along party lines...another sign that no consensus has been reached.

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (2/22/2009 8:20:51 PM)

First, FDR did not cause the Depression, Hoover did. He did so by raising taxes and spending to counter an economic downturn, as well as instituting punishing tarriffs, retarding international trade.

FDR deepened and lengthened the Depression by doubling down on what Hoover did. His own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, in his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in 1939 said that what they had done had not worked. He said they had spent a huge amount of money and that unemployment in 1939 was worse, and we had run up a huge debt to boot. One must assume that Mr. Morgenthau was in a better position to know whereof he spoke than is Mr. Conn.

Let me quickly give credit where it is due. The SEC was indeed a meritorious plan. The SEC is essentially a law enforcement agency, a legitimate role of government. Its effectiveness has waxed and waned from time to time, but its mission remains important today.

Social Security is the benefit derived from the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The idea itself had, and continues to have merit. Had the required contributions gone to private insurance companies rather than the government, the aged, disabled, widows and orphans would be among our highest income classes today instead of our lowest. If private insurance companies had done what the Social Security Trust Fund has done with those contributions, we would have to build another federal prison just to house the insurance executives that would have been convicted of fraud. Look at any entity that has opted out of the FICA. Every single one has vastly out performed Social Security. Insurance is a business. The federal government has proven consistently and without exception that it can not effectively operate a business enterprise.

Similarly, FDIC should be awash in money, as the premiums paid by banks have substantially exceeded payouts. Yet, since those premiums, like FICA premiums, have been comingled with the General Fund, the losses have caused budgetary strains.

WPA and CCC did indeed employ people, until they didn't. To call this successful would be to assume that business would not have employed them if the government had gotten out of the way. Had FDR reversed the ill-advised tactics of Hoover, the Great Depression would have lasted four years instead of 10, and we would have several billion dollars less debt. The roads and bridges comprised less than 20% of New Deal spending.

Many of FDR's remedies remain with us today. Deficit spending being the most readily identifiable. Also remaining is the idea that government can fix an economy. It hasn't and it won't.

Mr. Conn also suggests that the New Deal "reshaped the social contract between our citizens and our government". It did indeed. And the government has defaulted on nearly every clause of that contract. Yet people blindly continue to enter into ever more costly contracts, expecting different results. Those who teach in a different discipline from Mr. Conn have a diagnosis for that type of behavior.

Those of us who derive our living and perhaps our very existence from the economy rather than just teach about it have a little different take from those in the ivory towers of academe. The stock market is tanking. Companies are postponing or cancelling expansions. We are like Eve in the garden post-apple. We're standing back because we don't know how big this thing is going to get.

Teach whatever you want. But please, stop this insanity. Let us take our hits and pick ourselves up and get back to making money without the government in the way.

Democrat, Tulsa County (2/22/2009 9:42:31 PM)

fredsdad:

You are guilty of what you accuse others.

You asserted that government can not fix the economy, hasn't and won't. You failed to account for the massive deficits of the World War II budgets and the full employment and restoration of profits for businesses that came with those massive deficits. The size of the economy in 1945 was more than twice the size of the 1929 economy. It certainly wasn't because government backed away from the economic and fascist crises that either of those challenges was met and won.

You also have asserted that the federal government can not effectively run a business enterprise. With the many recent examples of how American businessmen run their companies, the records of the SSA, FDIC, TVA, and other government-run businesses look pretty good.

Your reference to the contributions of those of us who teach as "just teach" says far more about you than it does about us.

You might stop your own "insanity" before you offer that advice to others.

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (2/22/2009 11:13:02 PM)

So much wrong, so little space.

The worst economic downturn we have had since the Great Depression was during and immediately following the Carter Administration (ended by the Reagan tax cuts). The recessions of 90 - 91 (Bush I, cyclical and shallow and resulting from the 1990 tax increase) and 2001 - 2003 (dot com collapse, 9/11, ended by Bush tax cuts) were hiccups by comparison.

The statement that Reagan's tax cuts shifted money to the rich is at least disingenuous, if not purposely misleading. The rich did indeed get richer. So did the middle and lower classes. The difference being that the tax burden borne by the rich increased while the tax burden of the other classes diminished. The percentage of wealth and income of each class stayed, within a few tenths of a percentage point, constant from then until now. But each class had the same percentage of a LOT more dollars.

In 1981, the top 5% of income earners paid 49% of all personal income taxes on 16% of total income. Today, the top 5% pay nearly 70% of all personal income taxes on 21% of total income. The rates on the lowest 50% went from 7% on 26% of all income to less than 3% on 24% of all income. It should be noted that incomes for each increased by roughly the same percentage over that period of time. Furthermore, in 2004, the lowest income households received over $8.00 in benefits for each $1.00 in taxes. The top 5% received less than 38 cents. Estimates for later years are even more heavily skewed.

We have the richest and most upwardly mobile poor people in the world. The primary reason for that is that we have the richest rich people in the world. Many of those richest rich used to be the poorest poor. You can punish them for their success, but not without removing the opportunity for others who would follow in their footsteps.

You and others who feed at the public trough claim we need another New Deal? I am afraid. I am very afraid.

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (2/22/2009 11:36:03 PM)

Democrat,

Thanks for your response. With the exception of those who have been bailed out by the government, all of the companies who have been operated with the efficiency of the SSA, FDIC, TVA, and other government run businesses are no longer in business.

The economy in 1940 was the same size as in 1930, yet government spending was up by nearly 60%. The size of the economy doubled during the war years as government spending quadrupled. I see a trend there that perhaps escaped you.

Nothing wrong with teaching, but occasionally step out and get a real-world grasp of the effects of your theories.

Tulsaboyw, tulsa (2/22/2009 11:39:32 PM)

sorry but my numbers came from the treasury.
Census tends to have good numbers on a lot of stuff, but on taxes and related I go irs/treasury.

On the newdealfailure aspect I spoke of it comes from FDR himself, so saying that newdeal helped unemployment improve contradicts what FDR himself and his economic advisor said in memos they traded.

Also, rmeember that also per FDR that many of the socalled jobs were work assignemtns and not even jobs and many were in fact unpaid.

Ie; many were counted as jobs and never should have been, just like including jobs that kids work (pre-college) since their unemployment will always be very high. I do know that at least till a recent while ago that it was always included, (I dont know about now).

Besides, its already proven via japans recent problems that excessive spending combined with paying down deficet too soon will cause deeper recession and likely depression.

Tulsaboyw, tulsa (2/23/2009 12:02:56 AM)

Its already proven that goverment cant run biz.

Examples:

1. Modernization of IRS systems.
Billions spent on what others have done for 1/100 of same. (and at even higher levels of equipment).

2. SS, even any of us can take $2k at birth and do better than SS, and my $2k will be inheritable.
Btw I did that for a favorite neiece (her kids that is), and they will not even need ss in 60-70 years.

3. Non-military project mgmt.

FDIC/FHA are not necessarily business's and are not good examples.

Especially FHA; I have no intention of selling my house to a buyer using FHA, because of how FHA forced the seller (of my house to me) to do $15k worth of unneccessary landscaping that was half the reason I wanted the house.

The other parts FHA forced was ok (guttering, house specific stuff, traditional intems).

It took me ten years to get that landscaping back because it was very very expensive to redo.

If I had known FHA was going to force the seller to do this (I admittedly was unaware of potential government b.s. then), I would have canceled the contract to buy the house at that time.

In my next home, I will not be allowing the seller to make any changes to house unless I personally approve it, even if FHA requires them to do it in order to sell.

Fortunately I learned since how to be sure to not get screwed, like so many democrats love to do to others.

Democrats love to claim they are for the small guy, when in reality they arent.

Lets detail some history.

1. Democrats - Party of slavery.
Yes they did the CRA (Civilrights) but remember it was over the objections of major KKK leaders (who were in fact democrats) and some of which are still in office btw.
Btw, CRA would have failed if not for gop support.

2. They love to tax everything in site and even tax a tax on a tax.

3. When the say 'tax the rich' in reality they are taxing everybody anyway. Especially since in the case of taxing the rich, they can easily compensate by laying off a person to get that amt back.. and in the case of small biz rich its even more relevant.

When min wage goes up, they either raise prices, layoff, or or etc.. and in one glaring obvious example even shutdown.

In that one particular one, it was cheaper to shutdown outright, layoff all, and then reopen as 1800 individual stores of the company with now zero stores. By doing so they bypassed all federal law on min wage and on tax issues because there was no longer a big company.

4. We will have so many babyboomers in the future that even if one accepts that the ss is not going broke, its obvious that the only way it wont is per tax increases or benefit reductions or both.

In my own case, not getting 100% of what I put in is not going to be a option, I hope to live past 85 or so, but current health tells me its not likley, so I wont live to be 112 (it will take me 42 years from age 70) to get everything I have paid up to now (not even includign the next 19 years).

5. Business mgmt - um... look at IRS modernization efforts a while back when they spent billions on a failed effort.
A usa compnay did virtually the same thing for another country and it was 1/1000 of what IRS spent for this country.

Thats the best example of mismanagment.
ANother thing, we are #2 on corp taxes in the world and if you include dividends we are #1 on corp taxes.. no wonder so many are either leaving or on the verge and have continued to look for options elsewhere.

Labor costs is not truley the #1 reason anymore.

Democrat, Tulsa County (2/23/2009 5:14:01 AM)

Of course Enron and Global Crossing are pillars of the business community, boys. (Just scratching the surface of the belly ups over the last decade). Notice that the government businesses still operate. The same can't be said for Bush's friend's (KennyBoy Lay) business.

fred-- 1940 is not 1945. Nice try at deflecting from my point. A $200 billion + economy (1945) is more than twice the size of a $100 billion - economy (1929). I don't blame you for wanting to try to change my point to 1930-1940. I just can't let you get away with it, bud.

fred-- You are also guilty of only citing INCOME TAXES paid by the rich. How much of the SS tax is paid by your top few percent of the income earners? After all, we operate with a unified budget and the SS tax is significant. Doesn't it account for about 1/3 of total government revenues?

tboyw- I was under the impression that the defunct Whig Party (Abraham Lincoln's Party before the Republicans were formed) was the home of John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Zachary Taylor. According to every text book that I have taught from, they were Whigs and SLAVEOWNERS.

The Democratic Party does not LOVE to tax. It is willing to tax because that is what responsible people do. They pay as they go rather than run up a huge debt to pass onto their children--Running up a huge deficit is the Republican way.

The Federal Deposit Insurance CORPORATION IS a government business that insures bank accounts so that depositers will have the confidence to keep their money in privately owned banks. Before the FDIC, the privately owned banking industry had a horrible history of poor management. Not much has changed in that sorry fact, but because the government's FDIC backs up the banks, depositors don't "run" on their banks any longer. The federal business does its job and must do its job because the banking industry is run by incompetent businessmen.

Social Security will never be "broke." At least not "broke" in the sense that so many poorly managed businesses go "broke." We have three options besides the Republican plan to privatize SS to make sure that SS does not have to reduce benefits in a couple of decades. We can raise the age to qualify for benefits. (65 was the average lifespan in 1935). We can provide additional funding for it by raising the tax. We can also buy higher yielding I Bonds with the current surplus in the SS fund (Currently paying over 5%). That would mean that our representatives and President would have to treat the American worker as well as they treat the Chinese who currently buy our debt for a higher return than working class Americans are paid on their SS money. Of course, that would mean that the tax cuts for the rich would have to be repealed in order to fund a fair return for current SS dollars.

fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (2/23/2009 9:53:45 AM)

Democrat,

Out of courtesy, one last response. My reference to 1940 was not a "deflection", but a correction. It is generally acknowledged that the war ended the depression, not the New Deal. Pre war, the economy was flat while government spending increased 60%. That was the New Deal. 1940 - 1945, the economy doubled, while government spending quadrupled. That was the war, not the New Deal.

Global Crossing and Enron and other "belly ups" are no longer operating, which was my point. To cite that government run businesses that have lost far, far more money than did those entities are still operating confirms rather than counters my point. Your continued grossly inaccurate reference to "incompetent businessmen" reflects a blind prejudice, an alarming lack of intellect, or both. It certainly reflects an amazing ignorance, ingratitude, or both concerning whence your income is derived.

The burden of FICA taxes is collected more equitably, with the bottom 50% of income earners contributing 26%. But it should be noted that the bottom 50% receive the bulk of the benefits and are as well the targets of wealth redistribution. With a Democratic Congress, I anticipate this to change, as having the lowest 70% of income/wealth holders pay any taxes at all is contrary to their long term goal of having only 30% of the voting population being net tax payers and the bottom 70% being net tax recipients, a brilliantly conceived and, to date, brilliantly executed plan to retain power. The Plan requiring only the gradual lowering of expectations and the gradual acceptance of a lower standard of living for all classes. I suspect you believe this reflects responsible citizenship.

My congratulations and thanks for being a teacher. I just hope you are not teaching business, social studies, government, or history. Your posts display an astounding and willful lack of knowledge of each.

Democrat, Tulsa County (2/23/2009 10:32:45 AM)

You must have been correcting yourself because my point all along has been that the stimulus spending needed to win the war ended the depression. I also have made the point that the New Deal reduced the suffering of the unemployed. The Republican policies did NOT reduce the suffering. The unemployment rate continued to rise until Hoover left office.

I have received much positive recognition for the achievement of my students in Advanced Placement U.S. History. Because of their achievement, I have been invited by many other school districts as well as several universities to train thousands of teachers during the last decade. Therefore, excuse me if I choose to disregard your low opinion of my abilities.

This will be my last post to you as well. You are simply not worth any more of my time.

Rand, (2/23/2009 6:01:52 PM)

Well, I'm a history teacher with two degrees and a certification to teach as well. So I guess I'm qualified to take on "Democrat."

The New Deal had three goals: relief, recovery, and reform. It provided relief pretty decently, although black Americans for the most part didn't get much (FDR had to keep the white Southern Democrats in his coalition). It certainly "reformed" the system, although it's debatable how beneficial some of those reforms have been. I think that its safe to say that the long-term effects of the New Deal, its spiritual successor, the Great Society, have had as many destructive effects as positive ones. Democrats and Republicans usually disagree on whether the gains have been worth the losses.

What's NOT seriously debatable is this--at encouraging economic recovery, the New Deal failed. For all the massive outlay on all the New Deal programs, including all the public-works projects, the economy grew very slowly, when it grew at all, throughout the New Deal period. Employment was still in double digits in 1939. And it was not Keynesian economic policies so much as it was orders for war materiel from Britain and France starting with the outbreak of World War II in 1939 that got America's economy moving again. On the "recovery" aspect, it is eminently fair to call the New Deal a failure.

About Steven Conn's article, he makes as many egregious mistakes in defending the New Deal as he says that Congressman Steve Austria makes in attacking it. For example, Mr. Conn praises the passage of the Social Security Act, but it put the nation's finances on the road to eventual bankrupty, as anyone with actuarial tables could have predicted back in 1935, and as everyone but liberal Democrats acknowledges today.

Mr. Conn points out that Reagan's policies of partial derugulation and partial return to free markets resulted in a "nasty recession" in the early 1990s and "two devastating downturns," that of the early '80s and the current one. I guess he's forgetting the horrible "stagflation" of the 1970s, which was worse than either of the nosedives he mentions. The terrible economic situation of the late '70s, with double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and double-digit unemployment, helped drive Jimmy Carter from office in a landlside defeat. The sharp recession of '82 was the free-market corrective to two decades of that wonderful Keynesian pump-priming so beloved of economic micromanagers.

And that '82 Reagan recession was followed by 25 years of only-briefly interrupted economic growth that has only just now come to an end. Only a "progressive" would call such sustained economic growth and prosperity a failure. Oh, if we only had such a "failure" staring us in the face right now.

Instead we've got a revitalized commitment to the never-ending growth of the benevolent Super State, under the direction of The Gang that Can't Shoot Straight or Pay its Taxes that is currently running the show in Washington.