Where were you while Ronnie was winning the cold war?

Monday, July 22, 1996

Reaganomics led to boom, not bust in nation’s economy

Because it is an election year, l feel it is fitting to make a
few comments about a president. However, l wish to discuss the
administration of a former president, Ronald Reagan. This is the
tricky part. I’m not Republican, but I’m going to say some good
stuff about the Reagan administration. That’s right, good stuff;
conservatives may not be surprised, but you liberals just hear me
out. Ronald Reagan may be one of the greatest presidents this
country has ever had. Let’s forget the trillion-dollar deficit for
a minute. I’m not an ultra-conservative Republican (go Bill!), but
his administration accomplished what no other has ever done. He won
a war without shedding a single human life. He led the United
States to victory and avoided what would have been the most
destructive war ever. He won the Cold War.

His actions and programs had a dramatic effect on the domestic
economy. His expensive defense programs opened the door for an
economic boom. As a result, he defeated the Soviet Union by
out-spending them. He took his White House credit card and charged
everything. The results were unbelievable; the U.S. economy
exploded. His credit card economics (buy now, pay later) allowed
technology to boom. He continued to pour money into new defense
technology such as "Star Wars" and other projects to improve the
U.S military forces. This resulted in unprecedented success for the
economy. His two-term presidency resulted in the creation of 19
million new jobs. National unemployment in 1988 reached 5.3
percent, the lowest level since the early 1970s (it has again
reached 5.3 percent under Clinton ­ Go Bill!). Manufacturing
rose sharply allowing exports to increase dramatically as well.

The economy was making Americans money, producing many wealthy
people. When Reagan’s term began in 1980, there were a little over
half a million individual millionaires, judging by assets, in the
United States. By the end of his presidency in 1988, that number
had more than doubled. Furthermore, according to Forbes magazine,
the number of billionaires also doubled ­ from 26 in 1981 to
52 in 1988. By 1988, one in five adults came from households with
an income of over $50,000 a year, compared with one in 10 in 1983.
Even allowing for an adjustment in inflation, these gains are still
very impressive today.

More jobs continued to develop as Reagan spent billions on the
defense industry. The question which begs to be asked is: "How did
all this spending defeat the Soviet Union?" Simply, the Soviet
Union was unable to maintain pace with the high scale spending of
the United States. Their attempt to keep up with the United States
eventually destroyed their economy. While intense spending toward
the defense industry in the United States had a positive impact on
the economy, the results were the opposite for the Communist Soviet
Union. Spending more on defense resulted in less for its people.
Everyday goods, such as bread, grew less available to Soviet
citizens. Frustration among its people grew, and the rest is
history: Wall comes down, communism falls and the Cold War
ends.

Reagan’s opponents often blame today’s economic problems on his
deficit spending. Unfortunately, the trillion-dollar deficit
increases by $50,000 dollars every hour from interest alone;
however, the 1980s were a war-time economy. There were not any
physical battles; instead, the battle was fought with

the threat of retaliation and mutually assured destruction. The
nation with the greatest retaliatory forces would become the most
dominant. Reagan won this battle with deficit spending. The Soviet
Union could not keep up, and their spending destroyed their
economy. Reagan’s spending, however, bolstered the United States
economy. He had to take the necessary measures to win a war.
Increasing the national debt was an unfortunate result of Reagan’s
plans. Nevertheless, his administration was a successful one. The
Cold War did come to an end, and not a single life was lost in the
process. If you ask me, avoiding a war is worth any trillion-dollar
deficit.

Reagan does have more than his share of critics. His cutbacks on
social welfare and tax breaks for the rich were issues which were
unfavorable for a large portion of the population. Again, these
sacrifices were necessary in a wartime economy. Reagan and his
family were recipients of social welfare programs under Franklin
Delano Roosevelt; however, certain programs had to suffer for the
effort in the Cold War. In order to maintain a strong economy,
Reagan gave the upper-class portion of the population tax breaks.
He hoped that this would leave more money for them to spend, invest
and in turn maintain a stable economy.

Reagan’s actions benefited a small minority of the population,
yet he served two terms and won both elections by rather large
margins. Politicians cater to those who they know will vote. Only
half of all eligible voters vote. And who do you think these are?
They are disproportionately comprised of Cadillac-owning, generally
conservative, upper-class citizens. In 1984, almost one-third of
Reagan’s votes came from the highest income brackets in the
country. For example, 75 percent of those eligible in the upscale
Pacific Palisades voted, compared to 25 percent in the South Bronx.
Reagan cut social welfare programs, gave the wealthiest fifth of
the population a tax cut and won by a landslide in 1984. Regardless
of who voted for him, he made fundamental decisions and sacrifices
which made the United States the victor in the battle against
communism and the Cold War.

While on the subject of voting, as a college student and a
member of "Generation X," it’s frustrating to sit back and watch
the upper 20 percent of the country make decisions which affect me.
I haven’t met a student yet who is in favor of Pete Wilson and all
his cuts in education. We are the ones that are affected, yet we
are the ones who are not voting. As a group, we can only be heard
if we give politicians a reason to listen. If we don’t vote, they
will not listen. There are over a half-million college students in
California alone, all of which are potential voters. Politicians
will listen much more closely to a half-million votes, than they
will to a thousand-person college demonstration. If you were not in
favor of some of Reagan’s programs, where were you? Did you just
voice your opinion, or did you actually vote? OK, you were too
young then. Where will you be this fall?

Ben Mohandesi is a third-year history student.