Will Corporate Tax Cuts Really Reduce the U.S. Budget Deficit?

Mick Mulvaney
Mick Mulvaney (Wikipedia)

President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress are trying to pass federal tax reform legislation that could increase the U.S. government’s burgeoning debt by trillions of dollars. The federal government already owes more than $20 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than the current annual U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). And the $666 billion budget deficit for the federal fiscal year that concluded in October was the sixth highest on record.

Most economists say the best way to reduce the budget deficit without hurting the economy is by gradually implementing a combination of carefully crafted spending cuts and tax increases. But Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), former Congressman Mick Mulvaney, says there’s no political will in Congress to make spending cuts, so the only way to reduce the deficit is to increase tax revenue by stimulating annual economic growth to at least 3% through tax cuts.

A reduction in corporate taxes is at the core of the Republican tax reform strategy. They claim that the U.S. economy is at an international competitive disadvantage because the 35% federal corporate tax rate that’s been in effect since 1933 is among the highest in the world. They say that lowering it would increase economic growth because corporations would repatriate some earnings from foreign countries and conduct more business in the U.S.

But there is little evidence that the proposed tax cuts will generate enough compensatory growth to pay for themselves. For example, if 25% of U.S. income goes to towards taxes, every $1 of tax cuts would have to generate more than $5 of increased economic activity. And history shows that previous Republican tax cuts failed to produce promised increases in tax revenue. During the Reagan administration in the 1980s the Republicans gave tax cuts to the wealthy that were supposed to generate growth and income that would “trickle down” to the middle and lower classes. Instead, their supply-side strategy significantly increased the national debt, shrank the middle class, increased unemployment, and accelerated income inequality. In other words, the wealthy people just kept most of the money.

Furthermore, while the statutory U.S. corporate tax rate is high, corporations can take expense deductions that make their effective tax rates lower. According to a 2017 Congressional Budget Office report, the U.S. effective corporate tax rate was only 18.6% in 2012. Also, corporations consider many factors when they make business decisions. A tax rate would be the deciding factor only if all other things were equal. And few corporations are willing to pass up the profitable privilege of doing business in the U.S., the world’s largest economy.

Some corporations, of course, would use the money they’d save from a reduction in corporate tax rates to invest in new production. But many would simply inflate their stock values by buying back stock, increasing dividend payments to their stockholders, or they would pay their executive officers to even more outrageous amounts. These things would contribute little to economic growth, as most stock dividends don’t go to middle or lower income class consumers, and wealthier CEOs would just accelerate growing income inequality.

The primary lesson from the failure of supply-side economics is that not all tax cuts are the same, and that real economic stimulus comes from reducing taxes for the U.S. economy’s primary consumers – the lower and middle income classes. Subsequently, supporters of the Republican tax reform effort, including President Trump, are selling it as a tax cut for the middle class. But the middle class tax cuts included among the various features in their reform proposals are very modest, and in the Senate’s version of the bill they would expire at the end of 2025.

The reason they are set expire is because Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution in October to protect their tax reform bill from a Democratic filibuster. As long as the bill doesn’t add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, Republicans will only need 51 votes to pass it in the Senate. In other words, they know that their proposed tax cuts will significantly increase the national debt, and they’d rather eliminate tax cuts to the middle class than corporate tax cuts to avoid exceeding their self-imposed arbitrary limit on the inevitable debt increase.

Another indicator that they don’t really believe their proposed tax cuts will pay for themselves is that Republican Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has insisted that the final version of the bill contain a “trigger” that forces reconsideration of the tax cuts if it appears they are creating a big increase in the federal budget deficit.

The truth is that the Republican fixation on implementing tax cuts is a long-held political objective, not a proven economic tool. This if further revealed by House’s version of the bill which includes a provision to eliminate the estate tax, which would cost more than $172 billion in lost tax revenue over the next 10 years in order to benefit a relative handful of ultra rich families.

The proven Keynesian strategies of creating economic stimulus by lowering interest rates and increasing government spending aren’t available because they’re already exhausted. Interest rates have been at historically low levels for years in response to the Great Recession, and the federal debt has already reached historical highs.  So, instead of doing the hard work of compromising with Democrats to make sound budget deals, Republicans are trying to sell this tax reform bill as a magical panacea. They know that if it doesn’t work, their wealthy dark money campaign donors will still be happy with their lower taxes. Also, it will make it easier for them to cut funding for popular programs they don’t like, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In the meantime, the U.S. economy is doing quite well, and an argument can be made that there’s no immediate need for any tax cuts. The minimum economic growth rate that the Trump administration claims is necessary to shrink the budget deficit has already been achieved. The economy grew by 3.1% in the second quarter, and by 3% in the third quarter of this year. At the same time, unemployment was down to 4.1% in October, the lowest its been in more than 10 years. There are still some stubborn pockets of unemployment, but they are mostly the result of technological advances that have rendered some jobs obsolete, and the laid off workers don’t have the necessary skills to succeed in the new economy. And, by the way, recent corporate profits are at all-time historical highs.

The bottom line is that the Republican tax reform proposals look an awful lot like the failed supply-side “voodoo economics” of the Reagan administration. If Republicans really want to improve the economy, they should find a way to focus tax cuts on the middle and lower income classes, while investing in education, healthcare, public transportation, and affordable daycare. This strategy could increase the federal budge deficit too, if it isn’t accompanied by fair spending cuts combined with the elimination of tax loopholes and unnecessary subsidies. But it would have a much better chance of success. It would help Americans work themselves up from the bottom, instead of giving them false hope that some crumbs might trickle down from above.


On November 30, 2017, the Senate’s parliamentarian declared that the inclusion of the “trigger” provision demanded by Republican Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) would violate the special budget resolution rules the Republicans want to use to pass the tax bill without any Democratic support.

Late in the evening of December 1, 2017, Senate Republicans finally succeeded in passing their version of a tax reform bill. A conference committee must reconcile it with the version that was previously passed by the House before a final version can be sent to President Trump for his signature.

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the $1.5 trillion tax cut bill, named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. It became effective January 1, 2018.

In July, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the federal government recorded a $74.9 billion deficit in June, a month when the government often runs a surplus, as corporate taxes dropped sharply compared to a year ago. The government had a budget surplus in June in 52 of the past 64 years.

On September 13, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department  announced the U.S. budget deficit had widened to $898 billion in the 11 months of the current federal fiscal year, which concludes at the end of September, and revenue from corporate taxes had fallen by $71 billion from a year ago.

On November 12, 2018, The New York Times newspaper reported that the biggest effect of Trump’s tax cut was to increase the federal budget deficit.

On February 13, 2019, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the U.S. government’s public debt had accumulated to an all time record of $22 trillion. This was an increase of $2 trillion since Donald Trump took office in January 2017.

On March 22, 2019, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the U.S. budget deficit in February was $234 billion, the biggest one-month deficit in history.

The Supply-Side Economics Con Job

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan (Wikipedia)

President Ronald Reagan began the implementation of Republican supply-side economic policies after he was elected in the fall of 1980. It was a major turning point in the history of the U.S. economy because the strategy he promoted wasn’t based upon economic science, but upon the goals of a political ideology. It was widely criticized by professional economists and dubbed “voodoo economics” by his opponent in the Republican primary elections.

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” – Pope Francis

Nicknamed Reaganomics, his economic policies called for reducing taxes, especially for the wealthy, and deregulating businesses with the idea that this would stimulate investment in the economy and the increased wealth would “trickle down” to the middle and lower income classes.

To this day Republicans continue to claim that Reagan’s scheme worked because the U.S. economy did, in fact, improve during his administration. But that was mostly due to the Keynesian economic stimulus created by his large increases in defense spending.

The heart of Republican supply-side economic theory is the belief that reducing taxes will inevitably increase business investments which will create more wealth that will be shared throughout the economy. In other words, every dollar of income that’s used to pay a tax is a dollar that’s “removed” from the economy.

Reagan’s economic policies began to go into effect with passage of the 1981 Kemp-Roth Tax Cut, which cut income tax rates for everyone, but especially for the rich, with the tax rate for the very wealthy falling from 70% to 50%. Then his Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered income taxes for the wealthy even further, to 28%, while simultaneously increasing taxes for the lowest income bracket by 36%.

According to supply-side theory, these income tax cuts for the wealthy should have increased investment in the economy, resulting in better growth. But according to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, the rate of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) growth has steadily declined since the two Reagan tax cuts went into effect. GDP growth was 31% in the 1980s, almost unchanged at 32% in the 1990s, just 22% in the 2000s, and only 19% so far in the 2010s. In comparison, it was 40% in the 1950s, 44% in the 1960s, and 32% in the 1970s. This disparity is even more troubling when you consider that the income tax rate for the wealthy was 91% in the 1950s, averaged about 80% in the 1960s, and was 70% in the 1970s.

The chart below shows that investment in the economy has actually trended downward since the implementation of Reaganomics, even though corporate taxes were decreased too.

corporate taxation and investment
End Unemployment Now, Ravi Batra

The reality is that lowering taxes for the wealthy and corporations didn’t lead to more business investment and economic growth. This might seem counterintuitive because Republican claims that all tax reductions stimulate growth may sound like common sense. But the truth has been that most wealthy people have simply kept the extra money they’ve gotten from lower taxes. Why would you risk your fortune on a risky new business venture when you already have all the money you need?

Consider, for example, where much of the tax money that was kept by high income people was spent. Some of it, of course, was reinvested by responsible business managers. But a lot of it was spent on luxury cars and clothes, mansions, plastic surgery, mistresses, divorces, second and third homes, international vacations, personal jets, yachts, lobbyists, political bribes, conservative think tanks, lawsuits, and campaign contributions.

These types of purchases create economic activity, but not the type that benefits the entire economy. If this money, for example, had been collected as taxes, it could have been spent on transportation infrastructure, education, or mental health initiatives – expenditures that would have benefited all Americans and recirculated the money throughout the economy. In other words, the Reagan tax cuts actually “removed” money from the broader economy.

All Taxes Aren’t the Same

The problem with the supply-side theory that lower taxes will inevitably lead to economic growth is that all taxes aren’t the same. As we’ve seen, lowering income taxes for the wealthy doesn’t necessarily increase business investments. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress,  issued a report in 2012 that confirmed this. They concluded that:

There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

Lowering income taxes for the middle and lower income classes, however, will stimulate growth because they are the primary consumers of the economy’s products. Lowering taxes for the top 1% of income earners doesn’t significantly stimulate consumer spending.

Regressive taxes, which uniformly take the same percentage from lower income people as from higher income groups, also reduce economic consumption because poor people must spend a higher percentage of their money on necessities. A sales tax is the best example of a regressive tax. Social Security and Medicare (FICA) payroll taxes are also regressive taxes because high income earners don’t pay them above a certain annual income – called the Social Security Wage Base. Reagan’s Social Security Amendments of 1983 raised the FICA payroll tax and also the full retirement age for Social Security benefits.

Free Markets Aren’t Fair Markets

Another pilar of supply-side economic theory is that government deregulation will allow for a “free market” or “laissez-faire” economy that will undoubtedly be more efficient, and thus produce greater wealth than an economy with regulated markets. This philosophy, however, was already thoroughly disproven before Reagan was elected. The problems caused by unregulated markets, for example, were the impetus for passage of anti-trust and regulatory laws during the Progressive Era such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and the Federal Trade Commission Act and  Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. And the failure of the government to effectively intervene in the economy was a primary cause of the Great Depression. Moreover, the enormous GDP growth that the U.S. experienced during WWII proved that government involvement in the economy isn’t inherently bad.

But Reagan, a former movie actor who earned the moniker The Great Communicator, succeeded in drawing upon the fears and frustrations of many voters to convince them their own government was an enemy. He was so successful that he is largely responsible the anti-government sentiment that is so prevalent today. One of his most famous statements, for instance, was “Government does not solve problems.” This destructive narrative was protected in 1987 when his appointments to the Federal Communications Commission revoked the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present controversial issues in an honest, equitable, and balanced manner.

The Modern Robber Barons

Reagan’s tax policies, along with his anti-regulatory agenda, promoted long-term trends that have seriously damaged the U.S. economy. Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy, for instance, made it easier for corporate executives to pocket more profits. This is shown in the chart below by the enormous growth in corporate chief executive officer (CEO) pay since the 1980s.

ceo versus worker pay
Economic Policy Institute
Profit Stealing not Profit Sharing

The ability of CEO’s to siphon off more money from their companies also meant there was less available for employee wage increases. As you can see from the chart below, employee wages have been flat despite enormous increases in worker productivity.

disconnect between productivity and worker compensation
Economic Policy Institute

Furthermore, U.S. worker wages have steadily declined as a percentage of the nation’s GDP, and in dollar amounts too.

U.S. wage trend

In a properly regulated economy these new robber barons wouldn’t have been able to get away with stealing profits. But the modern U.S. economy is characterized by industries dominated by oligopolies, wherein a handful of producers can manipulate prices and wages. The two agencies that are supposed to enforce the antitrust laws, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, are run by political appointees. Furthermore, they depend upon Congress for their funding and taking legal action against large corporations is difficult and expensive. American consumers know firsthand by the odd behavior of prices for things like drugs and gasoline that price-fixing by oligopolies is a daily reality in today’s economy.

Reagan cannot be given all of the blame for the U.S. economy’s trend toward industries controlled by a handful of large corporations, as it’s been going on for a long time. But he can be blamed for popularizing the demonization of government regulators. His myopic ideology made him blind to the fact that government regulation is essential for many reasons, like prohibiting price manipulations, stopping the exploitation of workers, protecting public health, and preventing pollution. It’s also necessary for maintaining competitive-capitalism, especially in an  economy dominated by oligopolies. It isn’t a coincidence that an alarming increase in the number of corporate merges and acquisitions started when Reagan began to implement his anti-regulatory agenda in 1981, as shown in the cart below.

U.S. coporate mergers 1980-2012

Standard economic theory says that combining two competing companies can reduce unnecessary duplication and create a new company that’s more efficient and profitable, thereby benefiting the entire economy. This is certainly the result of some mergers and acquisitions. But many of the recent ones have been the product of vulture capitalists, also known as corporate raiders. They buy distressed companies, ostensibly to save them. The companies they acquire are then unnecessarily dismembered to ruthlessly extract as much value as possible and the remnants are merged with others they already own. The resultant “cost-cutting” results in the suppression of wage increases and layoffs. The insufficient enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws has often failed to ensure competitive capitalism, and allowed these mergers to proceed with insufficient scrutiny.

Fair Trade Isn’t Free Trade

But the ability of large U.S. corporations to effect the suppression of wages can’t be solely attributed to the trend towards industries dominated by oligopolies. It’s also a product of the U.S. government’s flawed foreign trade policies. Free trade is supposed to generate increased wealth for both trading partners because it maximizes their comparative advantages – letting each country’s economy focus on the things it does best. The economic advantages of free trade, however, depend upon it being fair trade. Too often U.S. trade agreements haven’t ensured a level playing field. How can an American company compete, for example, with a foreign company that requires its workers to work long hours and pays them very little and then uses violence against them if they complain? Or a foreign company that isn’t required to provide its workers with a safe workplace, or can pollute the local environment without any consequences? Or a company that receives direct government subsidies? Or a company in a country, like China, where the government manipulates the value of its currency in order to make the prices of its export products more attractive? The most immediate effect of these unfair trade agreements has been to create a race to the bottom of the wage scale in the U.S.

Common sense says that many foreign products sold in the U.S. would be more expensive if there were a level playing field, as their prices must include the costs of international transportation. Instead, however, unfair U.S. trade policies have resulted in the layoffs of millions of U.S. workers, and the cost of this unemployment has often outweighed the benefits of the lower prices for the imported products. How can U.S. workers, for example, enjoy lower import prices if they don’t have a job and have to live off unemployment? The anti-regulatory climate that Reagan created made it easier for corporations to convince U.S. politicians to leave effective fair trade provisions out of trade agreements.

U.S. trade deficit 1997-2014
Economic Policy Institute
jobs lost to china 2001-2013
Economic Policy Institute
 Supply-side Economics Have Increased the National Debt

Perhaps the biggest problem created by Reagan’s implementation of supply-side economics is the enormous increase in the federal debt that began with his administration. As we have seen, his income tax policies encouraged corporate executives to keep profits for themselves, instead of reinvesting them in their businesses or using them for employee wage increases. His anti-regulatory rhetoric and political appointments encouraged corporations to prey upon their competitors and outsource jobs overseas. The primary net effect was to decrease the size and prosperity of the middle class – the primary consumers of the goods and services produced by the U.S. economy. This lowered demand, and coupled with increased productivity from technological advancements, created an over-productivity in the economy that had be dealt with in order to avoid an accelerating downward economic spiral with high unemployment.

The easiest tool our politicians had to deal with this problem was to stimulate economic demand by increasing government spending. In other words, stimulating the economy through government spending replaced doing it with increased employment and higher wages. The dramatic increase in the national debt caused by supply-side economics has had the effect of shifting government spending from providing services for all citizens to increasing the wealth of the upper income classes, and accelerating wealth disparity.

federal debt history
wealth disparity in U.S.
Economic Policy Institute
Why do Politicians Continue to Promote Supply-side Economics?
“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.” – Warren Buffet

The bottom line is the facts show that supply-side economic policies don’t work. They’ve shrunk the middle class and generated unemployment, while dramatically increasing income inequality and the national debt. They haven’t created economic growth that’s pulled everybody up, just a rising tide that’s only helped the rich.

These policies are even more destructive when they are implemented by state governments because the states don’t have the federal government’s ability to incur debt to reduce unemployment by increasing spending. The race by Republican governors to lower state taxes at any cost has already created economic disasters in Kansas and Louisana.

The truth is that jobs are created by prosperous consumers generating demand for goods and services. In other words, the economy grows from the inside out, not the top down. The obvious solution to America’s economic problems is demand-side economics, wherein policies that grow the middle class by increasing wages, eliminating regressive taxation, and requiring that fair trade agreements are implemented.

The national discussion about how to identify and implement effective demand-side economic policies won’t make good progress, however, until supply-side theories have become so discredited that Republican politicians are forced to abandon them. You might imagine that would be an easy thing, since supply-side policies have been such a dismal failure. But a good example of the magnitude of the task is shown by the fact that Larry Kudlow and Arthur Laffer, two of the primary architects of Reaganomics, are still selling this snake oil today and people are still buying it.

Large Corporations Have Been Given Personhood

The biggest reason so many Republicans are still promoting supply-side economics is because they are being paid to do it. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FECC decision decreed that nonprofit 501(c)(6) corporations could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for political campaign advertising while concealing the identities of their donors. Additionally, very wealthy “conservative” businessmen, like the Koch brothers, have created a network of generously-funded think tanks that constantly spew cleverly worded, but disingenuous, political talking points. The result is that Republican political candidates know the easiest way to win an election is to mindlessly regurgitate the policies that are being promoted by these deep-pocketed donors and their organizations.

Democratic politicians, of course, aren’t immune to the powerful influences of large corporations. The enforcement of antitrust laws by Democratic administrations has been spotty. And Democrats were complicit in the 1999 passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the Glass-Steagull consumer protection provisions of the Banking Act of 1933. They also haven’t pushed very hard for the full implementation of the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The problem is that the self interests of the wealthy are increasingly dictating government policy. Discrediting supply-side economics, and other bad public policies, will continue to be a difficult job unless there are significant political campaign financing reforms.

What Are the Real Objectives Supply-Side Proponents?

The wealthy supporters of supply-side economics claim they are in favor of a free market economy that will create greater prosperity. But an economy dominated by oligopolies isn’t a free, competitive market. And the destruction of the middle class and the outsourcing of jobs overseas isn’t generating widespread wealth in the U.S. So, what are they really trying to accomplish?

One of their primary objectives is to lower taxes for upper income earners. They know supply-side economics don’t really work but can be an effective political smokescreen to justify tax cuts for the rich. It would be too politically difficult to simply argue that wealthy people shouldn’t have to pay higher taxes.

Some want to create a libertarian utopia wherein the government is practically dismantled so all problems can be magically solved by a free market. This isn’t true conservatism, but a radical ideology that’s never been successful in the real world. The result would not be a utopia, but a dystopia wherein things like worker exploitation, unfair business competition, and industrial pollution would be rampant. The absurdity of this vision is illustrated by the fact that growth inevitably creates a need for more government.

More importantly, if economic freedom is made paramount, political and social freedom suffers because elections become relatively meaningless when most of the important decisions are being made in corporate board rooms. The result is a society whose values are almost solely commercial, ruled by an mega-wealthy oligarchy of corporate executives. Some would say we’re already there.

But whatever it is that motivates the supporters of supply-side economic theory, it is an ideological strategy looking for real world validation that will never come. It’s supporters are helping to perpetuate a con game being run on the American public, and we can blame Ronald Reagan for initiating it.


In March 2018 President Trump appointed supply-side economics proponent Larry Kudlow to be Director of the National Economic Council.

Goldwater and Reagan Were Wrong

barry goldwater
Barry Goldwater (Wikipedia)

The Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential election are a good example of why a growing number of Americans believe the party is destined to be relegated to the dustbins of history because it’s been hijacked by right-wing radicals and loud-mouthed buffoons.  But modern Republicans, no matter how dysfunctional their politics might be, didn’t ruin the party. Much of the fault lies with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

The party began to lose its respectability 1964. That was the year that President Lyndon Johnson responded to the African-American Civil Rights Movement by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which had been passed by Congress with bipartisan support. Johnson eloquently described the importance of the law in a nationwide TV speech before he signed it at the White House on July 2, 1964. It was certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history.

Later that month Republican presidential candidate Nelson Rockefeller was booed during a speech at the Republican national convention in San Francisco when he warned against the growing influence of right-wing extremists within his party. The Republicans went on to nominate conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona as their presidential candidate in the 1964 election. Goldwater had opposed the Civil Rights Act in the Senate and his presidential campaign emphasized states’ rights, despite the fact that this was the rallying cry of Southern segregationists. He even argued that business owners had the right to decide whom to hire, whom to do business with, and whom to serve in their stores or restaurants. (Sound familiar?)

Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Goldwater was defeated by Johnson in a landslide, but he’s still considered the father of the modern conservative movement because the radical policies he espoused didn’t die with his defeat. They were carried forward by former Hollywood movie actor Ronald Reagan, who had given an eloquent speech in support of Goldwater during the election. Reagan’s speech didn’t change the election’s outcome, but it did make him a star among conservatives. He succeeded in getting elected Governor of California in 1966. In 1968 students at the state’s universities conducted non-violent strikes to demand equal access for minorities to public higher education, the hiring of more minority faculty members, and the addition of ethnic studies classes. Reagan encouraged local police to violently break up the strikes.

He was re-elected in 1970 and then ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nominations in 1968 and 1976, and finally succeeded in becoming the party’s nominee in 1980 and subsequently defeated Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan (Wikipedia)

Reagan launched his successful 1980 presidential campaign by giving a speech at the Neshoba County Fair, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been brutally murdered in 1964 by the Ku Klux Klan. He said he opposed the Civil Rights Act and believed in states’ rights because he didn’t think the federal government should intrude into local local matters. He also refused an offer from the NAACP to speak at their 1980 annual convention.

Reagan and Goldwater should never be forgiven for their opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Their argument that it wasn’t about racial justice but about the abuse of federal power was wrong. It’s part of their political legacy, which is largely responsible for the ideological bankruptcy that’s destroying the modern Republican Party.

Page 1 of 3
1 2 3