Posted on 02/08/2008 7:15:11 AM PST by meandog
I am constantly amazed (and annoyed) when the Right claims that the US has been hijacked by the Left over the past few decades. This is utter nonsense - the actual evidence indicates that we've moved far, far to the Right.
Consider the case of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961), Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, and a Republican. Funny thing is, by today's standards, Ike would be a flaming liberal, to the Left of all recent serious contenders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Ike on Taxes First, a quick definition of earned income vs. capital gains.
Earned income is income made from a job.
Capital gains, in contrast, is money made from the appreciation in value of something one owns (assets such as stocks, property, art, ...), rather than money earned from a job.
Average folks gets most of their income from their jobs, and thus the tax rate on earned income is most important to them. Rich people get most of their income from the appreciation of assets, and thus the tax rate on capital gains is more important to them.
Earned Income Tax: Ike's Time vs. Our Time
The highest tax bracket on earned income today is 35%. During Ike's administration, the highest tax bracket was 92% in 1953, and 91% thereafter [1]. Yes, taxes on the Rich were almost three times higher under the Republican Eisenhower compared to our current President, or compared to the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton!
Capital Gains Tax: Ike's Time vs. Our Time
It is considered to be almost the gospel today that capital gains should be taxed at a far lower rate than earned income. Today the maximum capital gains tax rate is a whopping 15% on assets that have been held for at least a year since purchase. This is why the middle class, who are dependant on earned income, effectively pay taxes at a higher rate than do the wealthy.
In Ike's day, capital gains were not treated differently from earned income, so the rich paid 91% tax on capital gains. From 91% to 15% - another reason why it's good to be rich!
Note that in 1955, in the middle of Ike's presidency, the typical (median) family paid less than 20% in all taxes [2]. By 2003, the total of all taxes paid by a typical family had more than doubled, to almost 40% of income.
So in Ike's day, the rich paid a lot of taxes, the middle-class paid a little taxes, and somehow it all worked out.
But Did Ike Want To Tax The Rich?
You might be curious as to whether Ike actually wanted such a high tax rate on the Rich, or was somehow forced into it by, say, a Democratically-controlled Congress. It turns out that when Ike ascended to the Presidency, both houses of Congress were indeed controlled by a single party - the Republican party. Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate - they could have done anything they wanted. And some in Congress did pressure Ike to roll back taxes on the rich, but he held the line, saying:
"We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income,until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."
Ike on Defense Ike was one tough hombre, the toughest of the tough. As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, he had led millions of troops to take back Europe from the Nazis, and he got the job done. An astonishing feat, an honest "Mission Accomplished". Ike was President during the early part of the Cold War - a war where our opponent had actual weapons of mass destruction pointed at us. Let's see some of the things that Ike had to say about war, the millitary, and... Halliburton. Would Ike's views be considered to be Liberal or Right-wing today?
On the millitary in general "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense."
On the Iraq War "All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
On Halliburton "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Ike on the Labor Movement We'll let Ike speak for himself on this one:
"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."
" . . . Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers, and . . . a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."
and while we're at it:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Ike and Socialized Medicine
In 1960 Eisenhower signed into law the Kerr-Mills Bill, generally considered to be the forerunner of Medicare. For the first time, Kerr-Mills provided for government payment of medical bills of 70% of citizens aged 65 and older. When was the last time you heard of even a Democrat suggesting an expansion of socialized medicine?
Ike And Unilateralism Eisenhower knew the value of working closely with allies, and specifically of working out problems peaceully through the UN. While the Right would have you believe that the UN is some sort of recent liberal plot to displace the US, the reality is that the UN grew out of the alliance of 26 nations forged to fight the axis powers in WWII. Eisenhower was, in effect, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe for the United Nations. For example, when President Truman announced the surrender of Germany he said “General Eisenhower informs me that the forces of Germany have surrendered to the United Nations”.
Here, again, are Eisenhower's own words:
"The world must learn to work together, or finally it will not work at all."
"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order. "
"The people of the world genuinely want peace. Some day the leaders of the world are going to have to give in and give, it to them."
Mediocre. How did we get the Interstate system? Who had to deal with Korea, McCarthey, the cold war?, Suez War, sputnik, Southeast Asia, civil rights. While you were watching Clara Bell and Howdy Doody? The 50s were great because Eisenhower was a cool hand.. SMART !!! Read “IKE”, please. I respect your Daddy.
Your observation of the “misleading” element here is dead on. When the marginal rates are referred to as the “tax bracket” in which a person lands, the impression is that all of their income is taxed at this rate. In reality, only those last few dollars above the marginal threshold are actually taxed at that rate. To say that the rates were three times the current rates is, as you say, simply incorrect.
Yup. I'm staying off the Interstate forever in protest. :-/
“JFK was more conservative than Ike. By today’s definitions, JFK is a neocon.”
When is this fool writer going to do a write-up on THAT inconvenient truth?
I am not sure a comparison to then vs. now and him (at that time) vs. McCain is going to shed much light on the conservatives dilemma at present however.
It is a long time until November. Personally my present view as neither a Republican nor Democrat is to either not cast a vote for President or vote for a yet to be announced 3rd Party Candidate. Either choice gives me no great solace as it will be the first time in 40 years of voting that I find myself not at least voting for the GOP candidate.
As George Washington warned us, our party system is killing the Republic. But that warning is 212 years old and I personally don't see any way of putting the Genie back into the bottle. I simply know that I can no longer blindly offer up my only capital in our political process to simply "vote against".
It is not an easy decision, especially for one who has served the Republic under arms and has a very clear picture of the world geopolitical danger we are facing.
About the only scenario I can see me voting for McCain is if the wacko Muslims hit us again prior to the general election, with massive casualties. Then I personally will want the "mad man's" fingers on the "button"!
“what elections come down to is who the uninformed voters like better.”
Actually, I’ll go you 1 better: they vote for whose name they recall better.
This is why stupid things like name-signs on lawns and bumper stickers work.
You sure do like dead guys for President. Is that why your pimping McCain?
I think our own miscalculations helped McCain. Many conservatives devoted their time and effort to attacking Giuliani, while ignoring McCain, who none of us thought had a prayer of getting the nomination. Also, we waited too long to unite behind Romney and it was too late by then.
Well, that is not so much for Presidential elections. I would like to think a voter in a Presidential election can at least put a name to a face and has actually heard some sound bites from that candidate. On local elections, there is no way the vast majority of voters could pick the candidate out of a police lineup let alone tell you what they stand for. In that case, name recognition is king.
McCain will certainly get the NRA endorsement, which Romney might not have gotten if he was the nominee. I voted for Romney, but there are pros and cons about him too.
Ike's opposition to the Military-Industrial Complex was more in tune with old guard Taft Republicanism than it was the "liberalism" of the time. Ike's integration off the schools was also consistent with Taft Republicanism.
Well, a lot of us were hopeful for another "Reagan" but, unfortunately, he broke the mold. (George W, sure couldn't fill his shoes and neither could his old man). I'm just sayin' to many of my fellow FReepers that maybe we don't have a Reagan but maybe we've got an Ike (and he wasn't so bad, IMO).
If you ever see the old films you can see Ike standing right next to Mac as troops under Patton sweep the area clear. They were on Federal land acting on the orders of the CIC, President Hoover, so Posse Comitatus was irrelevant. IIRC, MacArthur crossed a river into the main camp operating on the assumption (or excuse) that the BA was led by Reds, but against Hoover's expressed wishes.
The “libs” were not the leading opponents of Jim Crow. The conservative old guard Republicans, like Taft, were also more likely to oppose Jim Crow and Civil Rights. FDR was completely in bed with Southern racists. Check out the roll call vote on the tougher version of the 1957 Civil Rights Act if you don’t believe me or any anti-lynching vote from the 1920s to the 1930s.
Very deceptive. No one but a complete idiot paid 91% taxes. The tax code then was chalk full of various loop holes and the effective tax rate on the richest was likely no different than today.
I recall the 1950s and one of the buzz words then was 'brain drain'. It was used by the British to describe the outflow of some of the best and brightest from Britain to the US. Under the socialist governments of the 50s, Britain had a 90% tax rate on their rich, but they didn't have the loop holes that the American tax code had. Tens of thousands of British scientists, business execs, entertainers and others in high income professions voted with their feet and moved to America where they would be allowed to keep most of what they earned and that was with the US 91% top marginal tax rate.
The only real test of if we are taxing the rich 'enough' is not what the marginal tax rates are, but the percentage of total tax revenues they pay, and today with lower marginal rates and far fewer loopholes the richest 10% pay more than the remaining 90%. That was not true in the 1950s.
Another point on Ike and the "Military-Industrial Complex." That statement was made in Ike's farewell address in 1961 and it has been totally and intentionally misconstrued ever since. When Ike said it, it was a slap at the incoming Kennedy administration who had campaigned on the idea of a 'missile gap' saying that Ike's administration had allowed the US to fall behind the Soviets and promising to build bigger and better ICBMs to counter the Soviet threat.
The problem is that there was no missile gap then and the Soviets did not have a single missile in their arsenal that could hit us with a nuclear warhead. ( Not one. Their war heads were way too heavy.) Ike knew it and Kennedy knew it too but he used that ploy anyway. Ike was concerned with exactly what happened in the 60s --- a runaway arms race that was actually started by Kennedy. Not to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviets took the chance of positioning short range missiles in Cuba since they could not hit us from their own territory.
Kennedy started that crisis during his presidential campaign 2 years eariler. As to spending on defense, through Eisenhower's administration, all but the first several months in a time peace, the defense budget represented nearly 30% of the entire Federal budget. It has never been that high since.
I meant to say that the Taft old guard Republicans were more likely to support Civil Rights and oppose Jim Crow.
(Although not called by the same names) thanks to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, a two-party system survives and, I agree, we cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Still, I'd hate to see the U.S. resemble a political system like Italy where political parties are so numerous voters have a hard time keeping track of who is running. The two-party system has worked fairly well, I suppose.
Not to pick nits, but Jackson was a militia general. He became head of the Tennesse militia to further his political career as a frontier lawyer. Events (the Red Stick War & War of 1812) thrust him into prominence.
Career generals tend to be less successful. Jackson was more 'unconventional'.
If I’m not mistaken, in Ike’s day, interest on savings was not taxed at all. Interest on all personal loans was a write-off. Anecdotally, my father fought in The First Division under Ike and he always referred to Ike as an appeaser or a politician.
I should say that I personally believe Eisenhower was at best a mediocre President but I would have voted for him had I been old enough to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.