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. Republican Governor Doug Ducey’s plan to eliminate Arizona’s graduated income tax and fund the state’s government with a regressive sales tax increase threatens to create another mess there. (Arizona already has the 11th highest sales tax rates in the nation.)

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 the fall of 2017 the Arizona’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee reported that the state’s FY2018 budget faced a $24 million shortfall, and it would likely grow to $80 million for FY2019, mostly as a result of the corporate tax cuts pushed by Gov. Doug Ducey. Local conservative newspaper columnist Robert Robb responded to the news by calling for the implementation of a regressive sales tax increase to solve the deficit.

Arizona’s Public School Funding Battle

Arizona state flag
Arizona state flag

The Arizona Court of Appeals resumed legal proceedings last week in its review of a lower court’s decision in the lawsuit involving the Republican controlled Legislature and the state’s public school officials over the Legislature’s violation of the state’s constitution by ignoring Proposition 301. The  purpose of Proposition 301, which was approved by the voters in 2000, was to circumvent the Legislature’s chronic underfunding of the state’s schools by passing a 0.60% increase in the state’s sales tax rate, with the proceeds to be devoted to the state’s public school system.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper had issued a judgment in August of 2014 requiring the Legislature to comply with Proposition 301 by increasing state funding to K-12 public schools by making an initial payment of $317 million in fiscal 2014 as part of a total of $1.6 billion in payments over five years. But the legislature appealed that ruling and the appeal had been on hold pending negotiations between the two parties. Last week’s announcement by the Court of Appeals that further negotiations between the two parties would be fruitless means the Legislature must pay the schools the millions of dollars it owes them, but the Legislature has appealed that order and asked the court to delay ordering payments until the appeal is resolved.

After the court’s announcement Arizona Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, and House Speaker David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, proposed an alternative school funding plan that would provide significantly less money to the state’s schools than is required under Proposition 301. Their proposal included Republican Governor Doug Ducey’s recent controversial proposal to increase school funding.

Republican Complaints About School Administrative Costs Are a Red Herring Argument

red herringIt’s clear from the Republican legislative leaders’ reaction to the court’s decision that increasing school funding isn’t one of their priorities.  In fact, many Arizona Republicans are still trying to divert attention from the school funding issue by claiming that the state’s public schools could spend more money in their classrooms if they’d cut administrative expenses. But the Arizona Department of Education released a report in early August that compared the percentage of administrative expenses in the annual budgets of each of the state’s school districts. It showed that school administrative costs in Arizona were below the national average, and that one-to-one comparisons between the state’s school districts aren’t possible because of numerous variables. Even a spokesperson for Arizona Tax Research Association, a conservative anti-tax lobbying group, wondered if the report was “meaningful.”

The Department of Education’s report was the result of legislation passed several years ago by the Republican-controlled Legislature wherein all of state’s school districts were required to submit annual financial reports to the department. The idea was that publication and comparison of these reports would bring much needed light to local school budgets. Apparently it didn’t occur to Republican legislative leaders that the costs of creating the reports would increase school administrative expenses, or that school district budgets were the responsibility of locally elected school boards.

It’s clear that Arizona’s Republican leaders have been mesmerized by a radical Libertarian political ideology wherein the overriding issue is to minimize taxes – no matter the cost.  I don’t know if they’re so politically naive that they really believe in it, or if the conservative dark money groups promoting it are so generous with their donations that they can’t afford to disagree with it. But it’s never worked in the real world, and there’s plenty of evidence to show they are leading Arizona to ruin. It was recently reported, for example, that Arizona lost out on 3,000 new jobs because a couple of large companies decided against relocating to Phoenix because of they were afraid they couldn’t find good schools for their children and it would be difficult to recruit any outside talent that had school-aged children.


On January 8, 2018, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey gave his annual state of the state speech wherein he addressed public school funding and promised to begin to “restore long-standing cuts from the recession made before many of us were here.” He did not, however, explain where the money would come from. A report from the state’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee in late 2017 estimated that there would be a $24 million shortfall in the state’s FY2018 budget which would likely grow to $80 million for FY2019, largely as a result of the corporate tax cuts supported by Ducey.

In late January 2018 a group called the Arizona Education Project began running TV ads to convince people that Arizona’s public schools were in better shape than most people believed. By March they had spent over $1 million on the ads, and planned to continue running them.

On March 28, 2018, thousands of teachers rallied at the state capital to hold a #RedForEd rally to demand more funding for education in Arizona.

On April 10, 2018, Gov. Ducey, criticized protesting teachers by saying that he wasn’t interested in meeting with people involved in the “political” #RedForEd movement.

On April 12, 2018, Gov. Doug Ducey announced a new budget proposal to increase teacher pay by 9% in the next school year, and a total of about 20% over a four year period.

On April 19, 2018, Arizona teachers voted to conduct a statewide teacher walkout on April 26. Their spokespersons explained that Gov. Ducey’s pay raise proposal was not sustainable under the current state revenue structure and would probably come at the expense of other needs.

On April 20, 2018, Gov. Ducey vetoed 10 bills and told state legislators to send him a budget that included his teacher pay raise proposal.

On April 23, 2018, Gov. Ducey said he didn’t know why teachers were planning to strike because the new budget he’d introduced promised them some bigger pay raises.

On April 26, 2018, about 50,000 teachers and school supporters rallied at the Arizona state capital to begin a statewide teacher walkout to demand that the state’s government make large increases to public education funding.

In the early morning hours of Thursday, May 3, the Arizona legislature passed a school funding  bill that was quickly signed by Gov. Ducey. Striking teachers and their supporters were still at the state capital and celebrated a partial victory but promised to keep working to achieve the rest of their goals.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey Shows His True Colors

doug ducey
Doug Ducey (Gage Skidmore)

In the same week that the U.S. Census Bureau issued a report showing that the amount Arizona spends on public education per student is falling, and is now among the lowest in the nation, newly-elected Republican Governor Doug Ducey announced his plan to increase school spending.

Ducey said that he would work with the state legislature to draft a ballot initiative for the 2016 election (Proposition 123) to ask the voters if they want to distribute more of the money generated from State Trust lands to help fund K-12 schools. The state’s constitution currently limits the amount that can be distributed to 2.5% annually, so Ducey wants voters to approve a temporary increase to 10% for the next five years, and then 5% annually after that. He said it would provide more than $2 billion to the state’s schools during the next decade.

The money would certainly help the state’s schools, but it wouldn’t be available until after the fall 2016 election. Furthermore, special interests may convince the legislature to tack on extra measures as they craft the initiative’s language. Ranchers who lease state lands, for example, have been trying for years to get more favorable state grazing regulations, despite the fact that they already pay only $2.78 per month per animal. And real estate developers who purchase state lands on the edges of urban areas have complained about the State Land Department’s comprehensive urban planning requirements.

But even if the legislature provides an initiative with clean language that most voters can support, it doesn’t mean that Ducey believes education funding should be a top government priority. This was obvious during his June 4th press conference wherein he announced his plan. He made a point of the fact that his strategy included “no new taxes.” And although he didn’t make a direct reference to the ongoing negotiations over the $317 million initial payment owed to the state’s schools because the legislature illegally diverted money generated by Proposition 301, he implied that his plan would make that dispute moot because it would “put all the legal disagreements and disputes behind us.” He also said that, “Our public schools say they need more money to do their jobs.” But he didn’t say that he agreed with them, and he admitted that none of the money generated by his plan would go to the state’s universities, which took a $99 million cut in the budget that was passed this year.

Still, the bottom line is that Ducey’s proposal, if passed by the voters, would help the state’s schools. But that doesn’t mean that increasing education funding is one of his top priorities. It’s obvious that the reduction and elimination of taxes is perhaps his only real priority, and that strong political opposition is the only thing that will divert him from this ideological bankruptcy.


Page 1 of 2
1 2