Vision, Mission, and Strategy

Hillbilly Politics

I speak, of course, of President Barack Obama, his rapper and most leaders of the modern Democratic Party.

Obama was present with Michelle at the White House performance of Rapper, Common, last week (the equivalent of Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s celebration of the Klan):

He seems to have a thing about killing police.

Common has written one “poem” in which he talks about carrying weapons to use against police warning, “They watching me, I’m watching them.”

He has written material lauding Assata Shakur, a Black Panther who was involved in a shootout that killed a New Jersey state trooper. After escaping from jail, she now lives in Cuba. He named his daughter after her.

And he has lauded Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer.

And what’s more, Common has spoken out against mixed marriage – something you would think would get the attention of President Obama. He has made anti-gay remarks and suggested he’d like to “burn a Bush,” a double entendre, the awful half of which appears to suggest killing George W. Bush.

So, how is the anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin, brilliant Hope and Change agent working out for you, even since bin Laden died?

Has your, now 3-year’s dead, wallet yet been stimulated enough to motivate grooving to hip-hop, cop killer-praising “poetry” at the White House with Common’s fellow Trinity United-in-hatred of GD-KKK-Hate America Church, 20-year presidential and First Lady pew-parked butt parishioners? Yes, Common heard and loved the sermons that Obama claims not to have heard when his butt was parked there with Michelle for 20 years!

Today’s Democratic Party is not the party of JFK. It’s not even the party of the first Democrat Andrew Jackson.

After all, wouldn’t we prefer anti-Federal Bank so-called “white trash” to an anti-Boeing-plant-in-South Carolina holder of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate, whose greatest claim to fame is that he waited nine months to let the Navy take out a terrorist who was o-for-the-last-nine years?

Who thinks it is a class act occupying 1600 Pennsylvania  Avenue who recently said those who would enforce the laws against illegal immigration, that he swore an oath to uphold, are alligator-filled moat bigots? Or just a common listener to Audacity of Hope sermons?

Can over half the country, Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden all fit in the Rose Garden for the next Beer Summit?

The gloves must come off against the Job-killing  quarterback even if he is black and even if most of the occupants of the Fourth Estate run interference.

Our wallets are too empty to fear the PC Police. It appears that The One presiding over the worst 3+-year economy and counting since the 1930’s will not be challenged within the Party of FDR and HST.

Wonder if Attorney General Eric Holder would revise and extend his remarks about just who are the race cowards in this country, or is he too busy still prosecuting the CIA agents that gathered the intel for Obama’s “gutsy” decision?

No, it will have to be those from the Party of Lincoln that must take on the Democrat whose policies as president for the past three years (and for the previous two years as  a Senator that voted for TARP and two-Congressional majority Democratic Party budgets while President George W. Bush had KSM’s nose swabbed) has Black employment at its lowest level in history! That’s right, the man who got his dreams from a Kenyan father has more brothers needing a spare dime in 2010 than needed one under all those sired of paternal European extraction named Reagan or Bush.

The Establishment, Race-Baiting Wing of the Democratic Party

We thought that Democrats were proud of the welfare state, but dare mention the President of Food Stamp Nation, and you are branded a racist. No matter that one in six Americans receive that stamp of Obama’s approval and guardianship, in a nation where only one in 13 are Black.

Yes, it costs $4/gallon to go from A to B, but unlike in 2008 it happened gradually this time and while you at home with no job and not driving, you can watch Democrats frog-march oil company CEOs while eating the cheaper non-Le Seuer peas.

Obama doesn’t miss the taxes of the one in five unemployed white men and the 1930s record-rivaling 20% underemployed.

Obama the Lawless

After all, we can always tax Trump more. After all, if Medicare collapses while Obama says Paul Ryan and conservatives want to starve widows and orphans, we can get the money by laying off Congress and the courts. Its not as if President Obama follows the directions of any supposed co-equal branch if he wants to:

  1. Shut down oil drilling;
  2. Abridge non-neutral speech;
  3. Treat proposed aircraft construction jobs in Southern States as akin to the enlistment of Citadel Confederates preparing to fire anew on Fort Sumter;
  4. Grant waivers from ObamaCare to gay bars in Haight-Asbury while rightly denying them to my DeVine Outlaws bowling team in Tucker;
  5. Have fellow King & Spaulding lawyers in Mid-Town Atlanta defend Usama bin Laden’s captured employees pro bono while dropping defense of tradition marriage like a used rubber;
  6. Defend the right to privacy while letting born alive infants from botched abortions while demanding to know to whom your political contributions were paid before you are granted the right to plumb the next federal building housing all those newly stimulated bureaucratic jobs whose job it is to make sure snail daters live and private sector jobs die.
  7. Tell black majorities in North Carolina towns that they may not have non-partisan elections lest they vote for those racist white Republicans.
  8. Tell the 85% white district in South Carolina and Florida that the Voting Rights Act is still needed lest more Tim Scotts and Allen Wests get elected?

If the little guy wants a secret ballot before Democratic Party-bound union dues get deducted from his paycheck to fund ObamaDem political campaigns, he can go to court and try to preserve it. But with waivers, executive orders and painless contempt citations, its probably a crap shoot.

The only way to save the secret ballot for unions and create jobs to fund a recovery is to vote out Democrats next November on the general election ballot. You will face much interference in finding the facts about the results of democrats’ policies while the Media tries to get you to vote based on pimples on Elephant butts.

The Democrats as  the  (killer of jobs) Party of the little guy

It was always a crock at least since 1963, unless one means that the economic policies of Democrats create more poor, little guys.

It was Reagan’s conservative Republican policies that killed inflation, cut tax rates, resulted in more rich people paying more in taxes and ushered in the greatest 25-year boom in world history, with assists to a GOP Congress and a non-Obama Democrat named Bill in the 90s and Bush Republicans thru 2006.

Then the Bush-lied (no he didn’t, but…I digress) Era ushered in a Pelosi-Reid Congress promising tax hikes, greater regulation of job creators, and even less regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Atlas started shrugging when Pelosi became Speaker in 2007, hurt his shoulders when Obama was inaugurated and pulled a muscle when ObamaCare was crammed down our throats. I hear business is great in Brazil.

Bush surged in Iraq while 2007-8 majority Democrats in Congress, including two named Hillary and Obama, voted to cut off funds for the troops while increasing the deficit by 50% before Obama was inaugurated and ran up more debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8.

But of course, Bush lied (he didn’t) and the border fence is complete even if you can’t see but 5% of it. ABC, NBC, CNN et al are too busy examining Obama’s guts to report any minor prevarications. Zawahiri is still out there and after all, the seas have been lowered thanks to EPA-snuffed power plants not built and its 60 degrees in Georgia in the merry, merry month of May. If it gets too cold, we can always beg Mexico.

We saw last November that drinking tea is a cure for that interference. If that doesn’t work, look at your wallet and act accordingly.

Mike DeVine

Legal Editor – The Minority Report

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist for

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeHillbilly PoliticsUnified Patriots,  Political Daily and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at

26 Responses to ObamaDems: Just your Common cop-hating, job-killing, lying, lawless Rev. Wright acolytes

  • Bruce says:


    Wow. Well written but wow. Do I detect a little anger. First of all you have to make the post just a little shorter for a simple man like me. There is a lot to comment on here. I can only make a couple right now as I need to get back to work. But here goes.

    “Today’s Democratic Party is not the party of JFK. It’s not even the party of the first Democrat Andrew Jackson.”

    Nope it’s not. JFK was a philanderer and Andrew Jackson owned slave and is rumored to have a few black descendants.

    “anti-Boeing-plant-in South Carolina-holder”

    This one I am puzzled on. I live in Washington so I understand the dispute Boeing is having in the state with its relocation to South Carolina. I wonder why the federal government would get involved. Maybe it because Boeing has been granted over $45B in contracts by the feds, (this didn’t just start with the Obama administration), maybe it’s because Boeing was given $14B in federal loan guarantees to help boost exports, or maybe Boeing for decades has been courting pro union politicians to get preferential treatment. Maybe its just the chickens coming home to roost. I agree with you Boeing should be able to put a plant where ever they want and the federal government should not be involved. But maybe they have been in bed with each other so long they just don’t know how to get out.

    I will comment on more of this when I get time. By the way did I say Good Post.

    Black in America Baby…..The revolution has been televised

    PS. I actually like some of Commons music it’s not all about hatred he has had a lot of other things to say.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Bruce, thanks, and yes, I saw the televised revolution: All in the Family, Sanford and Son and five minutes of an Oprah! Truly, thanks for the compliment, and yes, I would admit at least three sources of anger. I am a former Democrat leader before 2000 AD who knows the evil that lurks in that party. b) My parents were instrumental in the integration of my hometown and so I hate the racism of the Dem Party exemplified by Obama; and c) ObamaDems don’t care about the real suffering of this recession as exemplified by their allegiance to liberal “reform” over recovery. People are hurting and I am one of them. more later

  • Bruce says:


    A few more comments.

    “It was Reagan’s conservative Republican policies that killed inflation, cut tax rates, resulted in more rich people paying more in taxes and ushered in the greatest 25-year boom in world history, with assists to a GOP Congress and a non-Obama Democrat named Bill in the 90s and Bush Republicans thru 2006”

    There we go again let’s talk about your favorite cowboy Ronald Reagan with the white hat. But let’s not forget to mention that when Reagan left office he doubled the deficit and that same thing happened with every president during that period except Bill Clinton. And isn’t the deficit the biggest complaint of today. Let’s also not forget In fact more new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history. During that 25 year boom we also went from a capitol based economy to a credit based economy. In 1970 there were 48.8 million service-providing workers, and 22.2 million people in the manufacturing sector, representing a service-to-goods ratio of 2 to one. In 2005 that ratio had grown to five to one and continues to get worse as we continue to ship manufacturing offshore. These are facts and you seem to ignore me when I state facts. It seems people here get more enamored with my Black in America ……The revolution has been televised tagline and ignore the facts. Or maybe you just don’t want to face up to them. You are right that 25 year boom as you call it brought to where we are today and you sit and try to blame it all on Obama. OK you don’t agree with his policies or solutions that’s fine. But I am amazed at how you are saying that Obama is going to drive us over the cliff and ignore the fact that the 25 year boom as you call it got us to the edge with the front wheels hanging over. You see I am not just going to put the blame on any one president. To do that just says our founding fathers were not that smart. This country was set up so that no one man in government could bring it down. It has been the systematic decline over your 25 year boom that got us here and it just so happens that 3 of the 4 presidents during that period were republicans.

    Black in America Baby……The revolution has been televised

    The revolution has been televised tag line in an answer to a poem written by Gil Scott Heron titled “The revolution will not be televised”. Well he was wrong the revolution turned out to be something different that he thought and it was televised…Check out the URL.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Clinton continued Reaganomics only with a GOP Congress that Reagan didn’t have. Moreover, Reagan’s deficits as a %of GDP were tiny compared to Obama’s and Obama’s doubling of the DEBT (not mere deficits) in 3 years is monstrous with the debt and deficits as a %of GDP now rivaling WWII. Reagan achieved great things with his relatively small deficits like defeating the enslaver of half the planet which also allowed the US to greatly reduce its military budget. The killing of inflation was monumental. No other President had given the FED the carte blanc to administer the hard medicine.

    Yes, we did get soft during the 25-year boom on debt both personally and as a nation. But we would we rather have not had the boom? We, as a people, have been slouching towards Gomorrah for a long time. I hope we can arrest the descent, but it certainly doesn’t discredit the longest boom in world history.

    more later, great questions and debate my friend

  • Bruce says:


    Let me throw a couple of numbers at you.

    From 1978 until 2005 the DEBT increased 36% under republican presidents and only increased 4.2% under the one democrat.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    ” I am a former Democrat leader before 2000 AD who knows the evil that lurks in that party.”
    ..I can sympathize; I was a Republican before Nixon
    came along…. 😉

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    BB’, Reagan fixed the Nixon problems! Except that, and this responds to Bruce’s good point, he had a democratic House (and Senate most of his term). Congress also matters. What we know is that Reagan would have cut domestic spending if he had had a GOP congress. And had Newt had a GOP president, I suspect that we would have made the fed govt smaller. I would concede that the Bush-DeLay congress failed us, but when compared to the Dem Congress of 2006-2010 and Obama as President, Dubya now looks frugal.

    Bottom Line: Congress matters more on domestic spending than Presidents. There is no secret that Dems would always spend more if not checked.

  • BB-Idaho says:

    I’m stilll trying to figure out the GOP: they have controlled all branches in my state since Reagan.
    They fought very hard against a ‘national ID’..privacy and all that. So, now they have pushed through a
    voter ID. I have never missed an election for anything and last time for school board I had to produce a
    voter ID. I guess its just me, but it smells of hypocracy or stupidity. No, both. My experience with the Republican Party has been one of disgust.
    Reagan? He taught me to sequester investments when the GOP was in power and invest when the
    Dems are in. Look up the market..its true. I got
    to retire early thanks to the GOP! 😉 If they can
    EVER come up with another Eisenhower, they will
    earn my respect and interest.

  • Bruce says:


    “There is no secret that Dems would always spend more if not checked.”

    Are you really looking at the numbers or just spouting rhetoric. I understand that you lawyers are “word merchants” and know how to spin things but let’s step back and look at real numbers. When Ronald Reagan took office the national debt was a little less than $1T by the time GB2 left office the debt was over $10T. Let’s look at it president by president.

    Ronald Reagan 1982 the debt was $990B when he left in 1989 the debt was $2.8T almost triple
    George Bush SR when he left office in 1993 the debt was $4.4B a 35% increase in debt
    Bill Clinton when he left office in 2001 the debt was $5.8T a 24% increase
    George Bush Jr when he left office in 2008 the debt was approaching $11T double (He had a republican house & senate his first term)

    You said about Bill Clinton, “Clinton continued Reaganomics only with a GOP Congress that Reagan didn’t have.” When in fact Bill Clinton signed into law the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act against the wishes of the GOP and here is what they said about the deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:

    “Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating.”
    —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
    “The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit.”
    —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
    “I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up.”
    —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
    “The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower.”
    —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)

    I think they are saying the same thing today but yet and still this was the period of time we saw the least increase in the debt and deficit spending was at its lowest. Please correct me if any of these facts are not true.

    “tiny compared to Obama’s and Obama’s doubling of the DEBT”

    Not true the debt stands around $13T while that is astronomical I agree, it is nowhere near double and is in answer to what has been building up over the last 30 years under mostly republican leadership.

    Black in America Baby……The revolution has been televised

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Exactly Amy, only if the next one invites all that Obama and Holder have insulted, over half the nation will be owed a brewski!

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Clinton’s first budget and only tax rate increase of his term was in response to Greenspan’s demand that a signal be sent to bond markets re the deficit and interest rate problem at the time. I think overall it was a net positive given how small it was, that the rhetoric of Republicans against it was overblown. What is correct policy and consistent with Reaganomics is not dependent on quotes from Republicans, but rather is based on the facts of policy choices and when one looks at the actual policies of the Clinton-Newt years, it was quite consistent with Reaganomics esp as regards the flat domestic spending that Reagan would have gotten from a GOP congress and with Clinton’s later cap gains and other tax cuts.

  • Bruce says:


    “I think overall it was a net positive given how small it was”

    So I am a little puzzled me being the simple man that I am. You made this comment about the Clinton “Deficit Reduction Plan” but now that Obama wants to return to those tax levels the rhetoric is that this will kill growth. Am I getting mixed messages here or is this just my confusion. If it was a net positive then why can’t it be a net positive now. Help a brutha out on this one.

    “it was quite consistent with Reaganomics esp as regards the flat domestic spending that Reagan would have gotten from a GOP congress”

    Hmmm…….Now if I have my facts correct George Bush Jr had a republican congress for the majority of his term. I believe it was only between 2001 and 2003 when the senate was split evenly Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001; he announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage. Then in the last two years of his presidency the democrats controlled both the house and senate. What happened then since having a GOP congress is so important to flat domestic spending. I don’t think your theory quite holds true since the debt doubled under George Bush Jr.

    Black in America Baby…….The revolution has been televised

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    The effect of the change in tax rates under different circumstances makes the comparison mostly apples to oranges. At the time of the change in 1993, the problem was high interest rates and the probable effect of a small tax rate increase on bond holders. The situation in 2007 when the Dems took over Congress and in 2009 when Obama was inaugurated was totally different with int rates near zero and investors on the sidelines. The answer to both problems is growth. In 1981, Reagan faced a much more complicated problem with inflation and low growth, both of which kills the American economy. Inflation threatems the value of the currency and is a huge regressive tax on the poor. Reagan understood that long-term actions produced inflation and that only a tight monetary policy (and inevitable recession would cure it). Reagan told Volcker to do it. No other President ever did that since the FED was created. Reagan also took the drastic step of drastic reductions in the tax RATE that effects what investors do. This caused a 25-yr boom with only minor interruptions because the rates stayed low and because Newt’s GOP prevented greater liberal regulations when a Dem became president. The greatest of which was the defeat of HillaryCare.

    Everyone alive at the time or that goes back and studies will know that Reagan was lambasted by the libs as heartless for not increasing domestic spending. Yes, we had deficits, but tax revenues increased 7-fold. We did increase defense, but it was a reasonable amount and we defeated the USSR, thus saving us much spending in the future.

    Everyone knows that Dems wanted to spend more money that Bush41, Newt’s congress and that Dems wanted to spend more than Dubya’s Rx drug bill and NCLB. The Dems are not part of the solution of growth or inflation, ever. Carter might have been as he was opposed more by the dem libs, but he had other problems.

    Growth is the key for the US as for no other nation. Why? Its not just population in creases. Its because we have to maintain a superior military and worldwide navy for the liberty and free trade to be maintained to the max. We haven’t the luxury of Sweden to live off the fat, happy in the knowledge that the US is protecting us.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    And to address the premise of your inquiry more directly, simply pointing to good econ times and the tax rates that obtained during that time to argue that raising tax rates now would be beneficial is quite irrelevant even if all other circumstances were the same, given the incentive effect on job producers. Libs seem to take for granted that people that create jobs will always do so, no matter the incentives they produce by their policies. Rich folks don’t have to create jobs and non-rich folks don’t take risks when the government makes it harder to realize profits from one’s time-consuming and already costly risk-taking. Most of human history for the mass of people was hunting and gathering and guarding what was captured or gathered before private property rights and rule of law in the US. When liberals slant the law toward snail darters instead of people, they force returns to mere survival rather than the miracle of risk-taking that produced the modern world in which the poor are obese.

  • Bruce says:


    “Reagan understood that long-term actions produced inflation and that only a tight monetary policy (and inevitable recession would cure it). Reagan told Volcker to do it.”

    I am not sure where you get this statement. First of all Volker was appointed by Carter to do just what you said, implement a tight monetary policy. In October of 1979,(pre Reagan) Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy and as you said as you said started the worst recession since the Great Depression. Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely and did not loosen his reigns until late 1982. Here is a quote from Volker on Ronald Reagan, “People in the White House and Treasury put pressure on Reagan, but they could never get Reagan to criticize me.” The president, Volcker said, “had this visceral feeling that fighting inflation was a good thing.” Reagan didn’t tell Volker to implement a tight monetary policy he was already doing that Reagan just watched and held his breath while policies implemented under Carter ran their course.

    “Reagan also took the drastic step of drastic reductions in the tax RATE that effects what investors do.”
    If this is true which it isn’t then tell me why private investment went down in the 80’s. What actually happened was the rich pocketed the money. Here are the private investment numbers:
    Private investment (4)

    1970 – 1979 18.6%
    1980 – 1992 17.4

    “This caused a 25-yr boom with only minor interruptions because the rates stayed low and because Newt’s GOP prevented greater liberal regulations when a Dem became president.”

    The interest rates started coming down under Carter who actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. Again Reagan continued the policies of Carter with more deregulation. If anything should be given credit for this 25 yr boom you speak of it should be Carter appointing Volker to get inflation under control and the rise of technology driven industry in an area known to the world as “Silicon Valley”.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Yes, Carter did start some good things like deregulation and the appointment of Volcker, but Carter flip-flopped on tightening the money supply leading up to the 1980 election. There are several sources for Reagan’s signals to Volcker and an especially telling short but significant meeting in which the Eureka econ graduate did something that FED observers describe as quite unique and bold when Volcker asked what Reagan would have him do to fight inflation. Volcker didn’t want to be attacked by the adminsitration as he had been by those in the Carter Admin when things didn’t improve to their liking. Reagan said simply: “Do whatever it takes”. Reagan knew it would take a very deep recession. See books by Peter Robinson and econ treatises by Bartlett etc. See also Reagan: A Life in Letters (page 294 and note 6) and White House archives. If I can find a link, I’ll post later. What we do know Bruce, is that what Reagan did for 8 years…worked spectacularly for 25 years with only small changes, on inflation, int rates, employment and foreign policy. And even the deficits as a % of GDP (which is all on the Majority Dem congresses refusal to keep their word on spending) look enviable compared to Obama.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Bruce meet Bruce:

    June 14, 2004, 8:46 a.m.
    Warriors Against Inflation
    Volcker and Reagan got the job done.

    One of the amusing things about the liberal media is its compulsion to always present an alternative perspective to conservative successes, even when it looks ridiculous doing so. Only liberal successes are allowed to be presented without some reporter saying, “On the other hand….” Thus, reports of Ronald Reagan’s accomplishments are always accompanied by boilerplate about his alleged failures, whether it was his inability to cure AIDS, the Iran-Contra scandal, or something else.

    Unfortunately, even conservatives sometimes fall victim to this compulsion. Two areas where this often occurs are inflation and the deficit. It is said that Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, deserves all the credit for eliminating inflation, with Reagan some kind of passive observer. It is also said that large budget deficits prove that Reagan’s economic policy was a failure. Both perspectives are seriously misinformed.

    It is true that inflation is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. The inflation of the 1970s came about primarily because Fed chairman Arthur Burns gunned the money supply to get Richard Nixon re-elected in 1972. He was followed by G. William Miller, appointed by Jimmy Carter. Miller didn’t have a clue about monetary policy and only made the dismal inflation situation he inherited far worse.

    The consumer price index, which rose 4.9 percent in 1976, the year Carter was elected, jumped steadily to 6.7 percent in 1977, 9 percent in 1978, and 13.3 percent in 1979. At this point, Carter realized that he had made a serious error appointing Miller to the Fed. But he could not be fired, so Miller had to be induced to leave voluntarily. Consequently, Carter fired Treasury Secretary W. Michael Blumenthal, who had been doing a fine job, in order to open the position for Miller, who left the Fed to replace him.

    Under pressure from Wall Street, Carter reluctantly appointed Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. Volcker had been under secretary of the Treasury for Richard Nixon and was then serving as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, it is naïve to think that Volcker was given a free hand by Carter. His inability to fully implement a tight-money policy is why the inflation rate fell only to 12.5 percent in 1980, despite a sharp recession that year.

    It was only after the election, when Volcker knew that Carter had lost, that he really clamped down on the money supply. This illustrates an important point: Presidents get the Fed policy they want, no matter how “independent” the Fed may be. If there had been any doubt about this, it was settled in 1967, when Fed chairman William McChesney Martin buckled under pressure from Lyndon Johnson and eased monetary policy even though Martin knew he should have tightened it. This caused inflation to jump from 3 percent in 1967 to 4.7 percent in 1968 and 6.2 percent in 1969.

    It is not now remembered how much pressure there was on Reagan to get rid of Volcker and have the Fed run a more accommodative monetary policy. Yet he not only supported Volcker publicly, he appointed like-minded people to the Fed whenever he had the chance. He reappointed Volcker to the chairmanship in 1983 and appointed Alan Greenspan to replace him in 1987.

    The result of the Fed’s tight-money policy was a far faster reduction in inflation than most economists thought feasible. From 12.5 percent in 1980, it fell to 8.9 percent in 1981, and 3.8 percent in 1982. It is hard to explain just how remarkable this achievement was. Most economists would have considered it impossible in 1980, especially given the big 1981 tax cut, which was generally viewed as pouring gasoline on the fire of inflation by economists schooled in Keynesian economics.

    But Reagan was firm in his belief that the money supply — and only the money supply — fundamentally determined the inflation rate. However, he also knew that other policies could ease the transition to a low-inflation economy. Toward this end, Reagan cut tax rates and reduced business regulation to increase the production of goods and services; deregulated the price of oil, which broke the OPEC oil cartel; and fired striking air-traffic controllers, which helped get the wage-price spiral under control.

    Ironically, the far greater success of bringing down inflation is what really created the deficit problem. High inflation had pushed people into higher tax brackets, which had caused federal revenues to rise automatically. But low inflation eliminated this bracket creep. This factor alone added $41 billion to the deficit in 1981 and $64 billion in 1982, according to Office of Management and Budget.

    Breaking the back of inflation was an enormous accomplishment. Reagan deserves much of the credit. Larger budget deficits were an unavoidable consequence.

    — Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Finally /s/

    Mike DeVine (BA Econ, Wofford 1981, summa cum laude, phi beta kappa…just saying…smile)

  • Bruce says:


    “Mike DeVine (BA Econ, Wofford 1981, summa cum laude, phi beta kappa…just saying…smile)”

    I guess this is to tell me how smart you are. And I don’t doubt that you are. Then tell me when did you loose your sense of direction and become a republican. Was it when you got your law degree.

    Just saying

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    No, trial lawyering in my SC hometown kept me a coward in the party of my birth for 15 years (as county chair, convention delegate, etc). I had a well-documented “conservative epiphany” (I’ll try and find one of the many columns detailing same) upon my move to Atlanta to move to corp work in June 2001.

    I first worked with a firm that represented The Champion newspaper (legal organ for DeKalb County) in Decatur and was offered a legal column writing position which, the week after 911 turned into a new career as I made news with the first column suggesting that captured terrorists would not be POWs under Geneva. Then I was offered the opportunity to do 4 editorials a year and used them all to challenge the craziness of then Ga-D Rep Cynthia McKinney and the civil rights victim gang in Atlanta. The rest is history.

    I had long been a only a self-described “Bill Clinton-Democrat” having been alienated by the Dems in Congress against tax cuts and weak on defense in the 80s. It took moving from my hometown to admit that the silver spoons I loathed there were right on policy! I still fight loathesome class envy in myself, that the Dems exploit. I stayed a Dem so long as well because of me and my father and mother’s instrumental role in integration of my hometown in little league, cub scouts and I hired some of the first black paralegals. I guess I bought into the Dem rhetoric long after I knew in my heart that they were exploiting race and poverty for power. more later

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    And btw Bruce, yes, I’m smart as hell…just ask me, but the main reason for the credentials note and my history is to lend credibility to me change of mind from left to right.

    Also, a great book on the First two years of Clinton that explains the budget fight, is The Agenda by Bob Woodward.

  • Bruce says:

    “And btw Bruce, yes, I’m smart as hell…just ask me, but the main reason for the credentials note and my history is to lend credibility to me change of mind from left to right.”

    LOL. I was wondering when that line was going to catch you. But Mike what your credentials tell me is that you are educated. Not that I am saying this about you but I know some educated people who are not very smart and yes my friend while they can go hand in hand there is a difference. So since you let me in on a little bit of your background let me tell you a little about me and maybe you will understand me a little better. I grew up on a town about 30 miles north of San Francisco and about 30 miles south of the Napa Valley. The town actually sits on the top of the SF bay on the NE end. It was once home to a naval base that closed in the early 90’s and it devastated the town. My father was an enlisted man in the Air Force and retired after 20 years of service. About 1 year before retirement in 1967 he bought a neighborhood grocery store and that is how he made his living until he died. Working in that store during my high school years influenced the way I think a lot. It was a mostly black neighborhood with a few Filipino families. Being in the Bay Area I was influenced not only by the works of Martin Luther King, but also Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver of the Black Panthers, by Malcolm X, by the pastors and sisters from my Baptist church and even by the winos who would share their wisdom while they sipped on the bottle of cheap fortified wine they just bought. I would watch MLK on TV, the panthers would come in the store and leave their literature and ask me “are you ready for the revolution Brutha”. The Black Muslims would come in the store and ask me have your read Muhammad Speaks today and are you ready to get your freedom by any means necessary and the sisters from church would ask me are you coming to church to pray this Sunday. All of them had the same goals in mind, equality, but everyone had a different approach to getting there. Yes I have an education with a technical degree, but these are my credentials. And I think they hold a lot of credibility.

    I find it interesting you mentioned how your parents helped integrate your hometown not that I am belittling their efforts at all, but to this day just about every time I walk into a roomful of people I integrate the neighborhood. You see Mike I think we are just like those Black panthers, Black Muslims and church ladies we are all after the same thing we just see different ways of getting there. And what I found from each one of these groups was that they all had something to offer and they all had something to reject (except for the church ladies, cause I still go to church and pray).

    All of this to say let the debate continue. I appreciate you, StephC and Susannah for letting me join you and feel that I am better because of it. While we may not agree we can at least have the conversation.

    Black In America Baby….the revolution has been televised

  • Mike gamecock DeVine says:

    Thanks for that Bruce and yes, I too watched the revolution on TV and on the ground. God bless and of course…more later

May 2011


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.