It would be nice if our bobblehead pundits and preening villager frauds on the teevee ever bothered to mention or contextualize recent history as they summarize the "debate" over the debt ceiling.
If they did, they might get around to speaking about something, I don't know, kinda sorta relevant. It's called the 1993 economic bill.
In 1993, in the wake of record deficits and 8+% unemployment rom wreckage of the Reagan/Bush years , the Democrats and President Bill Clinton passed a budget bill that RAISED taxes and CLOSED loopholes on the rich. It EXPANDED government in terms of Pell Grants and other social services.
How many Republicans voted for the 1993 budget bill?
FUCKING ZERO.
What happened 1993-2000? The longest period of sustained economic growth and deficit reduction in American history.
Of course, our media can never contextualize historical events when discussing the latest pundit issue of the day.
If they could, they might've pointed out in 2003 that Donald Rumsfield flew to Baghdad in the 1980s and made deals to sell military support to Saddam Hussein AFTER he'd used chemical weapons on his own people.
You might remember this image:
Or, more likely, if you watched national media, you wouldn't remember it.
Nor, when the republicans freak out over Iran's weaponry threatening Israel, do we ever hear our pundit frauds mention that in the 1980s Ronald Reagan ILLEGALLY SOLD ARMS TO IRAN.
It was kinda a big deal back then.
Ya know, the whole Ollie North "I lied under oath and would do it again" nonsense.
The same Iran, with the same leaders, as we have now, with John McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
But noooooo... our media can't mention the recent past. It would be uncouth! Shrill! Unfair!
So now we turn to the deficit debate, and not one pundit has pointed out that in 1993 Democrats raised revenue by raising the tax rate on the wealthiest, and not only did it lead to a balanced budget, but it didn't hinder the largest economic growth in American postwar history.
In 1993, we were coming out of another economic recession.
Not as bad as 2011, but still pretty bad.
In 2001, with economic surplusses, George W. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy, claiming it would spur even more job growth. In the same period as Bill Clinton's 1993-2000 run, the reverse occurred, leading to the worst economic collapse since the great depression.
But do we ever hear about the 1993 tax bill on the sunday bobblehead shows?
Does David Gregory ever mention it?
Chuck Todd?
The dancing clown that is Chris Wallace?
Of course not.
That would be "liberal media."
The past never happened.
There was no George W. Bush.
The 1992 recession was Carter's fault.
The 2008 recession was Obama's fault (or maybe Clinton's fault).
The closing of deficits after raising taxes in 1993? Not relevant.
The selling of arms by republicans to both Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah of Iran? Not relevant.
The economic collapse and record federal deficits after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts? Not relevant.
So who will speak out? Who will remind Americans of the past twenty years of unequivocal evidence that:
1. Tax cuts do not spur economic growth
2. Tax raises do not hinder economic growth
3. Tax raises close deficits
4. Tax cuts explode deficits
C'mon media frauds, don't be afraid! It's called the truth. You know. You read about it in journalism school once.