You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 39

PLAYS: 9

(David Stockman - Forecast: Murky with periods of Fog)

If the panel of interviewers on this Face The Nation broadcast from February 6, 1983 seemed baffled by the Reagan economic program, most of the people in country watching and listening weren't any clearer.

So when David Stockman came on to explain just what was going on with the budget, the panel and the audience were treated to more bobbing and weaving than a remedial arts and crafts class.

George Herman (CBS News): “You said that domestic spending hasn’t come down as projected nor, you said ‘do I think it can’. Are you getting with domestic spending to the point where you’re bumping up against what the American people want for their poor or their elderly and so forth, things that you cannot really politically or in America’s idea of what it wants to be that you cannot further reduce?”

David Stockman: “Well I think there’s some element of that. I think there’s some element of the practicalities of the legislative process. I think if you look at the half-trillion dollars, that we have in this budget that’s being criticized for domestic programs, and that’s the truth; one half Trillion dollars, and you hear the criticisms what people on the Hill are really saying is that here and there we disagree with the priorities, but in the aggregate we could probably do with less. The problem is, the Congress isn’t capable of making decisions in the aggregate that result in less because of the way it’s organized . . .

Herman: “Well I’m not sure it’s fair, Mister Stockman, to blame it all on the Congress. When you get to questions of ‘should we cut Social Security’s Cost-of-Living Adjustments, or as you call them ‘cola’s’, should we reduce Medicare and so forth. This just isn’t Congress, the American people are troubled by . . .

Stockman: “I indicated that my statement reflected some of both elements. The bi-partisan solution on Social Security for instance, indicated that yes, in the last four years Cost of Living Adjustments have been 50%, wages have gone up 38% , we can have a six month delay. The speakers agree that will save $25 billion over several years. On the other hand, it was also felt as part of a consensus that no abrupt reduction in benefits ought to be imposed in that big system.”

Dodging, bobbing and weaving. In short, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. You will hopefully forget soon enough.

Stockman would leave in 1985 and go on to another story.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 599

PLAYS: 358

(White House Chief of Staff and later Treasury Secretary James Baker with "friend" - coincidence? We think nope.)

Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand, stratagems and feints - all those characterizations to sum up the Reagan Economics plan. In this interview, part of the CBS News Face The Nation series from August 15, 1982, White House Chief of Staff, later appointed Treasury Secretary James Baker is asked point blank about the wildly varying opinions on the economic state and on the deficit.

George Herman (CBS News): “When do you personally think the deficit may be below $100 billion?”.

James Baker: “Well George, the official figure is of course is what I gave you and I recognize there are differences of opinion with respect to that. I think the point is that . .is that these ballooning deficits that we see are the reason why it is very important that the Congress implement the budget resolution that’s before it and it’s very . . .this is the reason it’s very important that we have a tax bill and that tax bill pass the Congress. Now, it’s really not important when I personally think the deficit might be below $100 billion. In the first place, I’m not an economist, and I really don’t have any independent view of that. The important thing, I think is that we need to constantly keep our eye on the fact that deficits are a major problem in this country. And that the ever expanding size of these deficits keeps interests rates up. And the fact that interest rates are remaining too high is what prevents the recovery from taking place. So it’s very important, we think, that as an administration that we . .that we do some responsible surgery, if you will, on these deficits”.

I guess having knowledge of economics wasn't a prerequisite for being appointed Treasury Secretary in 1985, at least not in the Reagan White House. I think its' safe to say the world o' crap we're in right now didn't necessarily start on January 2001.

But memories tend to be selective and short.

That's why we're here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 109

PLAYS: 7

(G-7 London Summit - even the protests were anemic)

With the G-20 Summit fading from view, I ran across a roundtable discussion of the recently ended G-7 Summit from June 10, 1984. Very tame by comparison to recent Economic Summit meetings, certainly the last two.

But back in 1984 it was all about the Cold War, with sprinklings of the state of the world economy kept off to the side.

Reagan was facing an election year and polishing up the Shining City was at the forefront.

During this Face The Nation program, Leslie Stahl asks several European correspondents their take on the meeting just ended.

Peter Jenkins (Political Editor – The Guardian): “There’s a suspicion now isn’t there, that what we’re seeing now is a President running for re-election and when he’s re-elected he may revert to the true Ronald Reagan. Now I don’t happen to think that will be the case, because I think that he will get sort of locked in to the new policy lines that he’s developing. But I think quite a few European people will reserve judgment until they see what Ronald Reagan looks like on his second Inauguration day."

And of course the interview with Assistant Secretary of State Richard Burt wasn't going to veer off course, despite hints from Stahl that all was not harmonious among the G-7.

Showing cracks in the facade just wasn't going to happen.

This is the legacy of the Reagan era: keep hacking away at vital parts of the safety net so politicians can proclaim they didn't raise taxes. It makes as much sense as selling your car's spare tire and jack.

Republicans used tax cuts as a way to bludgeon Democratic opponents, and instead of making voters understand how vital these government services are, Democrats far too often agreed with the Republicans and raced to cut everything they could. And now, when we need it most, the unemployment system is literally falling apart.

Who could have predicted that if you keep slicing vital services, you wouldn't have them when you need them?

WASHINGTON — Years of state and federal neglect have hobbled the nation’s unemployment system just as a brutal recession has doubled the number of jobless Americans seeking aid.

In a program that values timeliness above all else, decisions involving more than a million applicants have been slowed, and hundreds of thousands of needy people have waited months for checks.

And with benefit funds at dangerous lows even before the recession began, states are taking on billions in debt, increasing the pressure to raise taxes or cut aid, just as either would inflict maximum pain.

Sixteen states, with exhausted funds, are now paying benefits with borrowed cash, and their number could double by the year’s end.

Call centers and Web sites have been overwhelmed, leaving frustrated workers sometimes fighting for days to file an application.

While the strained program still makes more than 80 percent of initial payments within three weeks — slightly below the standard set under federal law — cases that require individual review are especially prone to delay. Thirty-eight states are failing to make those decisions within the federal deadline.

For workers who survive a paycheck at a time, even a week’s delay can mean a missed rent payment or foregone meals.

This is the part of the article that sets my blood boiling:

“Lower tax rates make it easier to attract business,” said Doug Holmes, president of UWC, a group that advocates on behalf of employers. “We don’t want to spend a whole lot of time beating ourselves up because we didn’t raise taxes enough. Nobody anticipated a recession this size.”

Yeah, nobody except a couple of Nobel Prize-winning economists and a bunch of dirty hippies with computers.