Friday, July 27, 2012

To Help or not to Help




Everyone who took high school English in the twentieth century probably read this  poem. We all will take different lessons from it, but for me the question is, shall we help those who need help, without reference to their merit, as Mary wants, or shall we wait to help those who deserve our aid, as Warren seems to prefer. For myself, I'd just say if we wait until someone truly deserves our aid, we won't help very many people.

 The Death of the Hired Man
MARY sat musing on the lamp-flame at the table
Waiting for Warren. When she heard his step,
She ran on tip-toe down the darkened passage
To meet him in the doorway with the news
And put him on his guard. “Silas is back.” 5
She pushed him outward with her through the door
And shut it after her. “Be kind,” she said.
She took the market things from Warren’s arms
And set them on the porch, then drew him down
To sit beside her on the wooden steps. 10
“When was I ever anything but kind to him?
But I’ll not have the fellow back,” he said.
“I told him so last haying, didn’t I?
‘If he left then,’ I said, ‘that ended it.’
What good is he? Who else will harbour him 15
At his age for the little he can do?
What help he is there’s no depending on.
Off he goes always when I need him most.
‘He thinks he ought to earn a little pay,
Enough at least to buy tobacco with, 20
So he won’t have to beg and be beholden.’
‘All right,’ I say, ‘I can’t afford to pay
Any fixed wages, though I wish I could.’
‘Someone else can.’ ‘Then someone else will have to.’
I shouldn’t mind his bettering himself 25
If that was what it was. You can be certain,
When he begins like that, there’s someone at him
Trying to coax him off with pocket-money,—
In haying time, when any help is scarce.
In winter he comes back to us. I’m done.” 30
“Sh! not so loud: he’ll hear you,” Mary said.
“I want him to: he’ll have to soon or late.”
“He’s worn out. He’s asleep beside the stove.
When I came up from Rowe’s I found him here,
Huddled against the barn-door fast asleep, 35
A miserable sight, and frightening, too—
You needn’t smile—I didn’t recognise him—
I wasn’t looking for him—and he’s changed.
Wait till you see.”
“Where did you say he’d been?” 40
“He didn’t say. I dragged him to the house,
And gave him tea and tried to make him smoke.
I tried to make him talk about his travels.
Nothing would do: he just kept nodding off.”
“What did he say? Did he say anything?” 45
“But little.”
“Anything? Mary, confess
He said he’d come to ditch the meadow for me.”
“Warren!”
“But did he? I just want to know.” 50
“Of course he did. What would you have him say?
Surely you wouldn’t grudge the poor old man
Some humble way to save his self-respect.
He added, if you really care to know,
He meant to clear the upper pasture, too. 55
That sounds like something you have heard before?
Warren, I wish you could have heard the way
He jumbled everything. I stopped to look
Two or three times—he made me feel so queer—
To see if he was talking in his sleep. 60
He ran on Harold Wilson—you remember—
The boy you had in haying four years since.
He’s finished school, and teaching in his college.
Silas declares you’ll have to get him back.
He says they two will make a team for work: 65
Between them they will lay this farm as smooth!
The way he mixed that in with other things.
He thinks young Wilson a likely lad, though daft
On education—you know how they fought
All through July under the blazing sun, 70
Silas up on the cart to build the load,
Harold along beside to pitch it on.”
“Yes, I took care to keep well out of earshot.”
“Well, those days trouble Silas like a dream.
You wouldn’t think they would. How some things linger! 75
Harold’s young college boy’s assurance piqued him.
After so many years he still keeps finding
Good arguments he sees he might have used.
I sympathise. I know just how it feels
To think of the right thing to say too late. 80
Harold’s associated in his mind with Latin.
He asked me what I thought of Harold’s saying
He studied Latin like the violin
Because he liked it—that an argument!
He said he couldn’t make the boy believe 85
He could find water with a hazel prong—
Which showed how much good school had ever done him.
He wanted to go over that. But most of all
He thinks if he could have another chance
To teach him how to build a load of hay——” 90
“I know, that’s Silas’ one accomplishment.
He bundles every forkful in its place,
And tags and numbers it for future reference,
So he can find and easily dislodge it
In the unloading. Silas does that well. 95
He takes it out in bunches like big birds’ nests.
You never see him standing on the hay
He’s trying to lift, straining to lift himself.”
“He thinks if he could teach him that, he’d be
Some good perhaps to someone in the world. 100
He hates to see a boy the fool of books.
Poor Silas, so concerned for other folk,
And nothing to look backward to with pride,
And nothing to look forward to with hope,
So now and never any different.” 105
Part of a moon was falling down the west,
Dragging the whole sky with it to the hills.
Its light poured softly in her lap. She saw
And spread her apron to it. She put out her hand
Among the harp-like morning-glory strings, 110
Taut with the dew from garden bed to eaves,
As if she played unheard the tenderness
That wrought on him beside her in the night.
“Warren,” she said, “he has come home to die:
You needn’t be afraid he’ll leave you this time.” 115
“Home,” he mocked gently.
“Yes, what else but home?
It all depends on what you mean by home.
Of course he’s nothing to us, any more
Than was the hound that came a stranger to us 120
Out of the woods, worn out upon the trail.”
“Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
They have to take you in.”
“I should have called it
Something you somehow haven’t to deserve.” 125
Warren leaned out and took a step or two,
Picked up a little stick, and brought it back
And broke it in his hand and tossed it by.
“Silas has better claim on us you think
Than on his brother? Thirteen little miles 130
As the road winds would bring him to his door.
Silas has walked that far no doubt to-day.
Why didn’t he go there? His brother’s rich,
A somebody—director in the bank.”
“He never told us that.” 135
“We know it though.”
“I think his brother ought to help, of course.
I’ll see to that if there is need. He ought of right
To take him in, and might be willing to—
He may be better than appearances. 140
But have some pity on Silas. Do you think
If he’d had any pride in claiming kin
Or anything he looked for from his brother,
He’d keep so still about him all this time?”
“I wonder what’s between them.” 145
“I can tell you.
Silas is what he is—we wouldn’t mind him—
But just the kind that kinsfolk can’t abide.
He never did a thing so very bad.
He don’t know why he isn’t quite as good 150
As anyone. He won’t be made ashamed
To please his brother, worthless though he is.”
“I can’t think Si ever hurt anyone.”
“No, but he hurt my heart the way he lay
And rolled his old head on that sharp-edged chair-back. 155
He wouldn’t let me put him on the lounge.
You must go in and see what you can do.
I made the bed up for him there to-night.
You’ll be surprised at him—how much he’s broken.
His working days are done; I’m sure of it.” 160
“I’d not be in a hurry to say that.”
“I haven’t been. Go, look, see for yourself.
But, Warren, please remember how it is:
He’s come to help you ditch the meadow.
He has a plan. You mustn’t laugh at him. 165
He may not speak of it, and then he may.
I’ll sit and see if that small sailing cloud
Will hit or miss the moon.”
It hit the moon.
Then there were three there, making a dim row, 170
The moon, the little silver cloud, and she.
Warren returned—too soon, it seemed to her,
Slipped to her side, caught up her hand and waited.
“Warren,” she questioned.
“Dead,” was all he answered. 175

Monday, July 23, 2012

Written Hurriedly and Not Edited

We were all horrified Friday at the demented acts of a man in Aurora Colorado, who entered a packed movie  house, set off canisters of tear gas and then shot twelve complete strangers to death and wounded many more. Among the injured survivors were a baby and a child. The perpetrator then quietly surrendered to police.

He appeared in court today, hair dyed bright orange, apparently bored and amused in turn by the proceedings. Next week he will be formally charged with twelve counts of first degree murder and numerous counts of attempted murder.

Never concerned about being wrong, Congressmen, and ministers immediately chimed in, offering all manner of opinions about the gunman's motivation. One reverend went so far as to say any of the victims who were not Christians (of his own stripe) would be going to a terrible afterlife. I'm sure that provided a lot of comfort to the grieving families and friends.

Today's court appearance was carried live on CNN and MSNBC, and I'm sure by other news outlets.

I don't argue that this wasn't newsworthy, but I did notice a streamer across the bottom of the screen at one point, reporting that a pickup truck in Texas had crashed with thirteen fatalities. Nobody broke into programming to cover that tragedy. Perhaps deaths on our highways are common enough that we hardly do pay attention to them anymore.

Both of these events are awful. One was a deliberate crime and the other an accident, but the people in both of them are just as dead. The anguish experienced by the people who loved the deceased is just as great. One gets an enormous amount of media attention and the other is all but ignored.

Here's my point. We are fascinated in a macabre way with ferocious acts of violence, but we have become anesthetized to the everyday violence that is all around us. Our culture is not sick, it's crazy. We accept thousands of road deaths each year in exchange for the convenience of our cars and moving our commerce over roads, even knowing what the price of that convenience is.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Voting and Voter Fraud

You need a photo identification to board a plane, to get a library card, and so forth and so on. Therefore, the argument goes, there's nothing wrong with requiring people to show a photo id when they vote. It will prevent voter fraud.

Well, I beg to differ. Voting is fundamental to our continued democracy. Although we don't want any voting by persons who are ineligible - non-citizens and the deceased are often mentioned - we do want everyone who is eligible to vote to be able to do so, and a purpose of government is to make voting as convenient as possible, not put obstacles in the path of anyone who wishes to exercise his or her right.

Nor does the fraud argument stand daytime scrutiny. Is there any credible evidence of significant voter fraud at any polling place around the country? If we're worried about chicanery among election officials, I'd say that's a legitimate concern, but requiring people to produce an identification the day they vote doesn't address this. It seems to me that voter photo id's is a solution in search of a problem.

Now I'll mention something that I think is real food for thought. Many states now have voting by mail. It's the way I've voted the last few years, to cite a personal example. It's supposed to be less expensive than buying voting machines and maintaining polling places is. But who's to say who is actually casting those ballots?

"Grandma's sick and doesn't know what's going on, so I'll just mail in her ballot with my selections," or "Our boy's away at college and his registration is still here, so we'll guess how he'd want to vote."

I'm sure readers can think of other scenarios.

 Voters are expected to sign their ballots under penalty of perjury, but I really really doubt that anyone scrutinizes signatures, or that city or county clerks keep samples of voters' signatures for comparison.

It strikes me there is a much greater potential for fraud by mail-in ballot than by polling place deceit.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Conspiracy Theory

Sometimes library patrons say the oddest things.

Tuesday night, a man finished checking out his books and for some reason launched into an exposition about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. And what did he say was the driving force for the attacks? Why, it was all about. . .asbestos abatement!

According to this man's theory, and I can't believe he made it up all by himself, the one single owner of the trade center towers was faced with huge costs involved with getting rid of asbestos. He claimed it would cost $1 billion to remove the carcinogen from the building and another billion for all the scaffolding he'd have to place around the outsides of the structures to get the work done.

And so, he cynically arranged for passenger jets to fly into the two buildings. . . three actually, including tower seven. . . committing thousands of murders to avoid coming up with the jack needed to do the right thing. He "sold it to the insurance company" as the expression goes.

Well, I've heard a crackpot theory or two in my time, but this one really takes the cake. As a humble public servant it isn't my place to argue with library patrons, but several pertinent comments about his little tirade did  immediately come to mind. Like, for example, what is going on in that tiny mind of yours? 

Faithful readers (You're out there somewhere aren't you?) know I'm by no means an apologist for big businesses or the people who run them. Still, hiring suicidal pilots to fly passenger planes into occupied buildings in order to save money would be such an insanely monstrous act that it just defies serious consideration.

It bothers me that this theory must be bouncing around the Internet somewhere. Clearly at least one person is attracted to it. How many others there might be is unknown, but it bespeaks a willingness to believe the very worst about our fellow Americans. 

Well, I'm done with this. I only brought it up in the first place as an illustration of how far off the deep end some folks are inclined to go. Have a pleasant Sunday.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Presidents I Remember (More or Less)

At age 63, I'm now living in the twelfth presidential administration of my lifetime. I don't remember Harry Truman as president and have only a vague recollection of President Eisenhower, but the rest are engraved somewhere in the alleys and byways of my cerebral cortex, and as a student of modern American history I've done some considerable reading about them. So, I thought I might provide some presidential anecdotes and trivia to perhaps lighten someone's day.

Harry Truman was a small town boy from western Missouri who married the love of his life and lived with her in her mother's very large house for the rest of their lives, except when he was in Washington. The evidence of rumpled bedsheets indicates that they continued to have an active sex life together into their mid-sixties at least.

Truman enjoyed vacations to Key West where he ostensibly went fishing with pals, but there's reason to think fishing was not nearly so important on those holidays as were drinking and playing poker. The president called himself a "lightfoot Baptist," meaning he didn't take the Baptist strictures against alcoholic beverages very seriously.

President Eisenhower enjoyed a cocktail, but doesn't seem to have been much of a drinker. He did smoke, which might have contributed to the heart attack he suffered during his first term. Until he became president, Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower had never really had a home of their own. They did buy a farm at Gettysburg    Pennsylvania during that first administration, however, probably a sweetheart deal aided by wealthy supporters.

Eisenhower separated his professional and personal lives more than most politicians do, and nowhere was this more apparent than in his relationship with his vice-president, Richard Nixon. Once later in his presidency Eisenhower gave a speech outside his Gettysburg house with Nixon present, then afterwards walked into the residence with some friends, leaving Nixon outside, remarking bitterly, "You know, he's never once invited me in that damn house."

John Kennedy was a sickly boy and as an adult was tormented by recurring back pain and Addison's disease. Even though  he publicly insisted he was healthy, and made a fetish of physical fitness, by any reasonable standard he was too sick to be president. Early in his presidency he injured his back during a tree planting ceremony and was in severe pain through much of his first year in office. To relieve his suffering, his doctor prescribed both amphetamines and barbiturates. Yes, the president of the United States was on speed.

Kennedy's was Catholic, but Senator Eugene McCarthy, in a rather catty comment, claimed that when the two men attended mass together McCarthy had to stop giving the Latin prayer responses because Kennedy obviously didn't know them, and McCarthy didn't want to embarrass the president.

Kennedy did go to Catholic confession, but feared that a blabbermouth priest would know his voice and reveal what the president had confessed. So he would stand in the middle of a line on Catholic secret service agents to avoid recognition. It didn't always work. Once he entered a confessional, and the priest immediately said, "Good evening, Mr. President." Kennedy answered, "Good evening, father," stood up and walked out.

Lyndon Johnson was kind of a big papa bear in the White House, remarkably adept at getting what he wanted from Congress - for a while. Johnson seems to have had a thing about scouring his body. As president he had shower heads installed in the presidential bathroom that delivered over one hundred pounds  of pressure, nearly what a firehose puts out.

He could be very human. Once he pulled up his shirt to show the press corps his gall bladder surgery scar.

I think Johnson had a personal animosity towards Dr. Martin Luther King, and did what he could to marginalize the civil rights leader. Perhaps he felt that the street protests were counter-productive.

Johnson had lusted after the presidency, but gradually became embittered by the office and by the Vietnam war. After leaving the White House he was heard to say that he felt he had sacrificed the love of his life - his Great Society program - for that bitch, the war.

Richard Nixon was a psychologist's dream, paranoid and afflicted with an inferiority complex in my opinion. I believe he never forgot an insult, whether it was real of he had imagined it. The whole Watergate mess resulted from his obsessive hatreds.

Nixon also believed in an extraordinarily expansive vision of presidential powers. He is quoted saying, "If the president does it, it's legal."

He liked his luxuries and his prerogatives. Two small examples:  Nixon took congressional leaders on cruises aboard the presidential yacht and served them wine that cost $5 a bottle. He drank his own wine from a towel-wrapped bottle that cost $30. In addition, Nixon enjoyed fires in the White House fireplaces. At the same time he was exhorting Americans to use less electricity to ease the energy crisis, he insisted that fires be kept burning in the White House during August, while the air conditioning system worked struggled to cool the very air the fires were heating.

Gerald Ford was a good and decent man who had a marked tendency to stumble and nearly huhostagert himself. This propensity became a kind of national joke in the hands of Chevy Chase and the brand new Saturday Night Live television show. He was almost hurt for real in two assassination attempts, only two weeks apart. In one of these, the would-be murderer managed to get within a foot or two of the president, but her gun failed to discharge. This was Lynette "Squeaky" Fromm, a follower of Charles Manson.

Ford accepted a challenge to debate his challenger in the 1976 presidential contest, Jimmy Carter, but probably wished he hadn't after he made a huge gaffe, claiming the Soviet Union did not control Poland. The high unemployment rate and the public revulsion against the Republicans in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal damaged his chances, but that one mistake probably doomed his candidacy. Carter could hardly wipe the "gotcha" grin off his face when Ford made that  boo-boo.

There is a kind of presidential mojo, and President Carter lost his somewhere around 1978. In fact, I think Jimmy Carter was the unluckiest president of my lifetime. Almost from the start of his term things didn't work out well. Carter and Senator Ted Kennedy didn't see eye to eye, the president wanting to emphasize energy independence and the senator wanting to push for national health insurance. His first winter was the coldest in many years and Carter urged Americans to conserve, something most people tired of pretty quickly. It was hardly Carter's fault that the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant had a containment crisis, or that Mount Saint Helens blew its top, but I think people just came to think the man was jinxed.

It hurt his presidency badly  that the Iranian revolution occurred during his term and fanatics took American diplomats hostage, though there was some warning and his administration might have evacuated before the seizure of the embassy took place. In fairness, this was almost unprecedented in modern times, so his failure to anticipate it is understandable. When the rescue mission failed disastrously though, he looked both irresolute and weak.

Carter made much of his religious faith, but even that seemed to betray him, and what was soon called the "religious right" was very instrumental in his failed re-election bid.

If Jimmy Carter had bad karma, his successor, Ronald Reagan, was born under a lucky star. Reagan was the son of a shoe salesman who was also an alcoholic. At least twice during his childhood his mother had to gather him and his brother and flee the house to avoid her husband's drunken rages.

Reagan attended public high school and then college on an athletic scholarship, running track and swimming. He majored in economics, though he later admitted he mostly studied sports and girls.

He graduated from college in the depths of the Great Depression, but soon found work as a sports announcer, doing remote broadcasts of Chicago Cubs games, then segued into Hollywood and movies. He was never a big movie star, but proved to be a capable professional actor and was still getting work in pictures well into his forties. He then became a corporate spokesman for General Electric, drawing a substantial salary as a kind of company cheerleader.

Originally a New Deal Democrat, he swung over to the Republican party in the early 1950's, alarmed and repulsed by what he felt was the growing influence of communism in American life. Soon he was among the most conservative of all Republicans.

His entry into politics was rather late in life and almost accidental, but he made a well-received speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater's doomed candidacy for president in 1964 and soon was asked by wealthy California Republicans to run for governor.

It turned out he was a formidable debater, who was taken too lightly by a succession of Democrats, including President Carter. He won the White House, promising to cut taxes, balance the federal budget and rebuild the military. He said he would accomplish this using the precepts of "supply side economics."

The result was a severe recession in 1982, a downturn that might have crippled his chances at re-election, but for the failed assassination attempt of 1981 and the man's remarkable personal magnetism. He was wounded much more dangerously by the assassin than the public was told, but his recovery added to his popularity and made it easier to get what he wanted from Congress.

The federal deficit exploded from $60 billion to $200 billion per year during his first term, but who cared, the economy was booming by 1984, fueled in part by military spending and partly by rapidly increasing worker productivity which itself was fueled by better and cheaper office machines - that is, computers.

Not everyone loved Reagan or his policies, but enough people did to give him a 49 state sweep in the 1984 election over the hapless Walter Mondale.

Like many presidents, his second term was not so successful though he did see the implosion of the Soviet Union during those years. He also provided arms to the Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan who would soon become a major irritant to the United States.

By 1988 the country had seen sixteen years of Republicans in the White House to four years of Democrats and pundits said the nation was ready for a change. Though Reagan remained popular all the way to the end of his second term, his potential successor, George Bush, did not share the outgoing president's personal attributes. To get elected he waged what I think was the nastiest presidential campaign of my lifetime. Bush and his surrogates simply assassinated the character of his opponent, Michael Dukakis, though it must be said Dukakis ran the most inept campaign I ever saw.

Bush is famous for the "no new taxes" pledge he made when accepting the Republican nomination, but sensibly broke the pledge in 1991, making a budget deal with the majority Congressional Democrats. Though the bargain was made in a bipartisan spirit of compromise, something the public says it wants from our politicians, it infuriated Bush's hardcore base, and, along with another recession, paved the way for the election of Bill Clinton.

Bush was an elitist. He vacationed in Maine and went surf fishing there, something most Americans have never done. He expressed surprise at a grocery store in 1992 over barcodes, something that had been in use for ten years at the time, making people wonder if he ever went to a store himself. He checked his watch halfway through a presidential debate, looking as if he just could hardly wait to get out of there, and when asked how the recession had affected him personally he answered, "What do you mean? I don't get it." You could almost hear people all over America saying, "Well, that's the problem, George, you just don't get it."

Bill Clinton. What shall we say about Bill Clinton? A man of undeniable political ability, ambitious to a fault, charming but personally sleazy. Henry Stimson, way back at the beginning of the twentieth century, was asked his opinion of successive presidents. Of Theodore Roosevelt, he said, "A man's man." Of William Howard Taft, he said, "A lady's man." And when asked about Warren Harding, he opined, "A sporting lady's man."

Clinton, whose candidacy was nearly terminated in 1992 by Gennifer Flowers, didn't learn to  keep his pants zipped, and subjected the nation to the spectacle of an impeachment in 1998 and 1999 over his extra-marital relationship with an intern and alleged lies about it, and an attempted seduction under color of authority years earlier while still governor of Arkansas. Never mind that the Republicans fanning the flames of impeachment were base hypocrites, hiding their own transgressions while hounding the president for his.

Clinton escaped the presidency in 2001, still comparatively popular, but his would-be successor, Al Gore, was damaged by the White House scandal. Indeed, Gore could claim the country was prosperous and at peace after eight years of the Democrats, but George W. Bush insisted he would bring honor and integrity back to the White House, and that made the election a virtual dead heat.

I don't think I'll discuss the 2000 election in depth. Most people remember the story. I'll just repeat a question being asked in the aftermath. "If you were told about a third world country where an election was extremely close and the outcome depended on returns from a single province where one candidate's brother was governor, and where the counting of ballots was very suspicious, wouldn't you think the whole thing was real fishy?"

George Bush was a ne'er-do-well as a young man. He formed successive companies that always seemed to be on the verge of  failure when he'd be bailed out by wealthy friends of the family. He invested $600,000 of borrowed money to buy into the Texas Rangers baseball team  and a few years later sold his interest for $15 million in what can only be called a sweetheart deal.

He was often drunk. Here in Colorado Springs we point out the Broadmoor Hotel were George Bush supposedly awakened one morning in the mid-1980's, hungover, and decided to reform his life.

Bush's major economic premises were tax cuts and privatization. The tax cuts left government checks in most people's mailboxes, which made them happy but didn't change anyone's life. Quietly, the tax rebates to wealthy Americans were much much larger than what average folks received. The "Bush era tax cuts" are still a matter of political debate ten years later, though when they were enacted they were supposed to be a temporary stimulus.

I think the country was ready to fire George Bush in 2004, but John Kerry, viciously attacked by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," whose commercials were paid for by a wealthy Bush supporter, didn't give people a good enough reason to do so. I also think that if Hurricane Katrina had struck New Orleans in 2004 instead of 2005, and people saw how inept the federal response was, Bush would have lost the election.

Of President Obama, I'll say very little. According to his first book, he did sleep in a New York alleyway his first night in the big city, and in the morning cleaned up with a hose before attending classes at Columbia. He has been bedeviled by "birthers" who deny he's an American by birth and therefore his presidency is illegal, though he has shown a birth certificate and the state of Hawaii acknowledges their paper birth records have been destroyed.

He seems to be getting thinner and grayer as his term progresses.

Well, this is a long post and I have to get to work. Bye

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Trickling Down, According to Wikipedia


"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.[2] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[3] The term is considered pejorative by some proponents of tax cuts.[4]
Proponents of these policies claim that if the top income earners are taxed less that they will invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals.[citation needed] Proponents argue that economic growth flows down from the top to the bottom, indirectly benefiting those who do not directly benefit from the policy changes. However, others have argued that "trickle-down" policies generally do not work,[5] and that the trickle-down effect may be very slim, if indeed it even exists at all.[6]
Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. Originally, there was a great deal of support for tax reform; there was a dual problem that loopholes and tax shelters create a bureaucracy (private sector and public sector) and that relevant taxes are thus evaded. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the Democratic Party-controlled House, at the urging of President Reagan, cut the marginal tax rate on the highest-income tax bracket from 70% to 28%.
A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[7]
"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[8]