Peter Ferrara, currently of the climate-change denying Heartland Institute and formerly of Jack Abramoff’s payroll and the Reagan and Bush I administrations, writes for Forbes that Mitt Romney will cut middle class taxes, no matter what Barack Obama’s attack ads say.
Maybe so, but since Romney’s plan is mathematically impossible, the candidate doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt.
Romney’s bad math and conflicting promises are what allowed Obama to create ads that misleadingly assert that Romney would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000. Romney has pledged to cut tax rates by 20 percent across the board while not losing any tax revenue. The Brookings Institution’s Tax Policy Center analyzed Romney’s proposal and said to get revenue neutrality, he’d have to raise taxes on middle class up to $2,000.
I don’t know the future any better than Ferrara (last seen at The Audit talking about how economic growth is “hip” and mangling his facts) does, much less the future positions of a politician whose undergone as many radical transformations as Mitt Romney, but either the middle class tax cuts have to go or the “revenue neutral” part of the plan has to go.
You can have your own opinions on the future, of course. But you can’t misstate the historical record to make your economic case, and that’s what Ferrara does in this column. And I thought it was worth picking apart since he perpetuates a commonly held belief here:
That reprises Reagan’s 1980 campaign proposal to cut tax rates across the board by 30%, which was enacted in 1981 as a 25% income tax rate cut for everyone. Those sweeping tax rate cuts helped spawn the greatest economic boom in world history over the next generation, 1982 to 2007. That boom is now an established, recorded, factual result, and, therefore, is not an issue over which reasonable people can differ.
This is just false. Real GDP grew an average 3.3 percent a year in the 25 years from 1982 to 2007. But guess what? It grew 3.4 percent a year in the previous 25 year period, from 1956 to 1981. Real GDP per capita grew 2.2 percent a year from 1982 to 2007, and it also grew 2.2 percent a year from 1956 to 1981.
And real GDP per capita grew 2.4 percent from 1947 to 1972. It’s just not true that Ferrara’s 1982-2007 time frame was the “greatest economic boom in world history.”
But that’s not all. Ferrara’s “Reagan boom” was goosed on a flood of debt, both from the financialization of the private sector and from deficit spending you might call Keynesian, even.
In 2012 dollars, total private sector and government debt in the U.S. rose from $13.3 trillion in 1982 to $54.2 trillion in 2007, according to Federal Reserve flow of funds data. To put that $39 trillion increase in perspective, real GDP over that time totaled $243 trillion. The country leveraged up to the gills to finance economic growth during Ferrara’s “Reagan boom” and we’re paying the price now with a depressed and deleveraging economy.
My favorite part of this piece though is this bit of self-aggrandizement from Ferrara in comments to his post (emphasis mine):
But thank you for your recitation of the Obama campaign talking points. They have been monitoring this column because they fear what it has been saying and I see they are ramping up the standing of those assigned to comment on it.
I’m kind of fascinated by these DC creatures, the “wingnut welfare” cases, as the lefty bloggers call them, who perpetuate these zombie lies. Here’s Ferrara’s bio of current jobs: “Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.”
Oh, and Forbes columnist.


"Streams of income," me boy! The only way to make it as a hack in this post Reagan-boom era.
But you have to say the things The Market will pay to hear.
Facts? Logic? No percentage in those.
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 3 Oct 2012 at 06:52 PM
Reagan has a legacy so distorted by the Conservative idolization of him that we may never have a clear picture of the real man behind the television set beyond the elaborate myth now concocted around him. Did he really rid the world of commie scum? Did destroy or save our economy? Check out my portrait of The Gipper and help me figure it out on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/02/happy-100th-gipper.html with some Cold War Hollywood!
#2 Posted by Brandt Hardin, CJR on Wed 3 Oct 2012 at 07:28 PM
I agree with both of the above posters, but - much, more importantly - the false deification of Reagan by the self serving right should be a very frequent topic of today's journalists. Ever time they let grandiose claims about Reagan and Reaganomics slide by, they do the public a great disservice. To take a broader view of your informative column's subject matter, the Reagan years were a checkered affair with, as you point out, gains in one area often wiped often wiped out by scandals, setbacks, and questionable decisions in others. The far right loves to forget the direct connection between Reagan's administration and the administration of his questionably educated, neo-con disciple George Junior. Both admininstration's ended in major recessions caused by financial misdealings facilitated when both President's defacto told regulators to turn their backs. The far right pundits have complete amnesia about this phrase: "the Savings & Loan scandal".
It was this mismanagement - and Reagan's prolifigate military spending - that forced Bush I to go along with raising taxes to try and dig the country out of Reagan's economic hole. And Dick Cheyney's illusions aside, it's instructive tko compare the results of Bush II's attempt to reinstate Trickle Down economics to Reagan's results. Bush's growth was so anemic that it was more than wiped out by the recession he did nothing to stop, and much to indirectly promote. Trickle Down just keeps proving its viability. In other words, another highly checkered legacy.
I hope you will continue to challenges these dangerous fallacies frequently, and that your journalistic colleagues will FINALLY get the message.
#3 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 10:54 AM
I gotta remember to seperate my paragraphs with a line space or indents, since this RIDICULOUS blog format can't recognize a single return stroke from the enter key. Silly!
#4 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 11:01 AM
So, so sad. But the antithesis of surprising—sullying the name of "journalism" once again. (Seriously...this is supposed to be an educational tool and institution???) I don't even know where to begin with the problems with this piece. First of all, the TPC study widely stated in recent days is, admittedly, majorly flawed (http://washingtonexaminer.com/no-romney-will-not-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/article/2509736) We obviously have very different definitions of "math" and "possible." Second, regarding Reagan's deficit and/or tax hikes, rarely mentioned by opponents is the fact that it was a time when the US was at the height of the Cold War, helping transform the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Third, you can nitpick here and there, but virtually every, single metric in the world will tell you the Reagan years and policies were a booming success, in stark contrast to the Carter years (a very, VERY apt comparison in ideology and failure with Obama). http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577609863412900388.html
There's just one problem with your worldview Mr. Chittum: it has an extremely low opinion and appreciation for facts and history. It hasn't worked, won't work, and never, ever (ever) will work. "Help sustain serious journalism, give to CJR" it says here.
#5 Posted by Anthony, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 11:12 AM
If it wasn't the "Reagan Boom", should we call it the "Tip O'Neill Bust"?
Would that make you happy, Ryan?
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 11:45 AM
It's a complete denial of reality to suggest that reagan fostered the boom of the 80s by giving the Trust Fund Babies a big tax break.
Every economic boom, going back centuries, is brought into being by one or more technological advances. Just look at the 20th century
The prosperity of the 20s was a response to automobiles, radios, and other mechanical wonders of the age, not CC. It was perverse greed by bankers that crashed it.
The 50s and 60s prosperity were a response to automobiles, television, jet aircraft and a flood of other mechanical wonders. The greed of Oil producers crashed it.
The 80s were NOT powered by reagan's Voodoo ecnomics, prosperity of the 80s and early 90s was the enormous boost of productivity and consumer activity generated by personal computers and electronic gaming as well as more TVs and, does anyone remember, Stereo sets. More banking greed and deregulation crashed it.
In every case, it was NOT the elite who stimulated growth but consumer spending on the part of wage earning workers and the "middle class".
in summary, Wages should ALWAYS be treated more favorably with respect to taxes than "un-earned" income, which is from the indolent rich.
A logical extension for the future is to make huge and domestic (American) investments in "green" energy. Only fools deny climate change and only fools maintain that fossil fuels will power the next 100 years of growth.
#7 Posted by unkjwea, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 12:44 PM
Good piece. Would have been even better had it also debunked the myth of prosperity during the Roaring Twenties, when, as is not generally known, about a third of Americans dropped out of the money economy.
#8 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 01:26 PM
Some perspective on Ronald Reagan:
http://minus.com/lwVhkZ5wr2BfC
Download to see all of artcle.
#9 Posted by Dan Fulton, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 04:13 PM
Oh, I see Anthony, you're a comedian. Quoting the Washington Examiner, a non-journalistic enterprise, told what to say by it's publisher, billionaire Phillip Anschutz. He degreed the editorial page would contain "nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers". Next you'll be quoting the Washington Times, Reverend Moon's personal mouth organ. Tell me, have you consigned any of your children to the "Moonie" cult? But I guess anything is acceptable if you claim to be a conservative.
But your funniest material is the propagation of the Reagan myth. "Virtually every, single metric in the world will tell you the Reagan years and policies were a booming success". So, as Chitturn points out, you failed math. Here are some of the unqualified Reagan successes: The Saving and Loan scandal, which you conveniently forgot; selling arms to our enemies, which Ronald Reagan conveniently forgot signing while on the witness stand; a failed attempt to revive the domino theory in El Salvador, which only resulted in a lot of unnecessary death; a joke invasion of Grenada, often using tourism maps; a huge deficit largely based on a lot military hardware the military didn't want and a Stars Wars scheme that no legitimate scientist says is anywhere near currently possible; and the list goes on an on. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was being liberated largely by sattelite dishs, not sattelite missile destroying platforms. Ronnie watched too many Bond movies.
BTW, since I know you also struggled in history, the height of the Cold War was the '50s, when we had the moderate President named Eisenhower. You know, the one who had the huge tax rates on the wealthy and still better growth than Reagan? And the one who warned against the "military industrial complex"? Obvioulsy, not a speech that failed to make any impression on Reagan.
Of course, all I said can be verified through the public record. Unlike the unreliable source that is the Washington Examiner. But it is a great source if you're serious about "sullied" journalism.
But, I have to admit, you are funny!
#10 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 04:49 PM