# data[].attributes.body
The Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground when trying to avoid reported icebergs. The crew was unable to steer the ship back into the shipping lane so it hit bligh reef, resulting in an oil spill of 10.8 or 41 million liters of oil into the ocean. This is crazy. I love learning about this time in history because of how huge this oil spill is that affected the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Exxon Valdez was one of the worst oil spills in world history. The spill blackened beaches and killed the wildlife. The spill was too big to just scoop up which made the cleanup so hard. During the cleanup, there was huge winds and a storm that delayed cleanup and spread the oil more. The captain of the ship also was discovered to have been drinking. The captain being under the influence was so surprising to me. He put the oceans life in danger. This is important to learn about for the future and to make sure the mistake doesn't happen again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: In the Wake of Disaster | Retro Report | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
The oil spill had polluted 1500 miles and killed so many birds and sea otters. Each otter saved was estimated to cost Exxon between $40,000 and $89,000. That's a crazy amount of money. This oil spill really had an effect on the animals. The article also states,  "Even so, by day four, the prevailing currents had carried what had spilled forty miles (64 kilometers) past islands and shoreline to the southwest; by day seven, ninety miles (145 kilometers); by day eleven, one hundred forty miles (225 kilometers); and by day fifty-six, four hundred seventy miles (755 kilometers).” I'm so amazed by how huge this spill was and how it spread to affect so many poor wildlife. This needs to be learned about so we can prevent it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: High School

Explore thousands of topics across subjects including literature, science, history, and social issues using different sources.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: High School Explore thousands of topics across subjects including literature, science, history, and social issues using different sources. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
The spill had polluted the ocean and destroyed the environment for the animals. The clean up of the spill was super time consuming. There were 11,000 people working on cleaning up the spill and 3,500 people assigned to beaches. Exxon spent $2.1 billion on the cleanup effort. Its crazy how much this oil spill effected the world and how much money had to go into cleaning it. High tech Barges were used to heat up sea level and blast oil covered rocks at high pressure. These worked but killed nearly all plants and animals it touched. This is so sad that the oil has killed so much wildlife. I hope people can learn about this to try to prevent it.

# data[].attributes.body
This article really touches on the Exxon Valdez oil spill and its importance. After the spill, 26,600 gallons of oil were still present in the waters, declining at a rate of only 4 percent per year. The oil spill was so intense that it affected the ocean in the long term too which is so interesting to me that oil can do that much. There were long lasting compounds in oil that affects the hearts of fish and make it more difficult for them to swim. The article states that, " Researchers noted that fish populations were generally lower in the decades following the spill. Higher death rates were observed in sea otters, ducks, and other animals that ate contaminated foods of the area."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explore this database of encyclopedias and reference sources within the Gale eBooks platform. For multidisciplinary research.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore this database of encyclopedias and reference sources within the Gale eBooks platform. For multidisciplinary research. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1980 there was 4,002 active S&L by 1983 962 had to shut down. The head chairman of the S&L company committed bank frauded and was sent to jail. The cost of this scandal is thought to be somewhere around 150 billion dollars. Some people think this was the greatest scandal ever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: High School

Explore thousands of topics across subjects including literature, science, history, and social issues using different sources.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: High School Explore thousands of topics across subjects including literature, science, history, and social issues using different sources. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
This book explain why this all happened for the saving and loan. Also it tells us how these saving and loans grew and began and how they started in the first place. Also during this time the government did not have that much control in the company so that is way/how this company got away with all they did.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

In 1989, newly elected President George H. W. Bush unveiled a plan to bail out over one thousand failed savings and loans institutions. The massive failures constituted a crisis that has been interpreted in many ways. Some believe it was the greatest scandal in American history. Others describe it as the most profound case of fraud in the history of crime. Others still regard it as the natural result of the so-called climate of greed nurtured by the Reagan administration. Still others saw it as a premeditated conspiracy to move covert funds out of the country for use by U.S. intelligence agencies. The cost of the crisis has been estimated at $150 billion, of which roughly $125 billion was directly subsidized by the U.S. government. The savings and loan (S&L) crisis contributed to the large budget deficits in the early 1990s and may have contributed to the 1990-1991 economic recession. Estimates predict it will cost over $500 billion over thirty years to completely bail out the failed S&Ls.

Savings and loan associations, also known as thrifts, have been around since the 1800s. They are financial institutions originally created to accept savings from private investors and offer home mortgage services to the public. Beginning in 1932 with the creation of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, thrifts were strictly regulated and deposits were insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). Although the S&L crisis happened in the 1980s, its origins were in the 1960s and 1970s when market interest rates began to fluctuate with increasing intensity. The fluctuations made it difficult for the S&Ls to survive because interest rate ceilings prevented the institutions from paying competitive rates on deposits. This meant that every time market interest rates rose, consumers withdrew substantial amounts of funds and placed them where they would earn higher rates of return. The effect of consumers withdrawing deposits (disintermediation) and subsequently redepositing funds when the rates rose (reintermediation) left the S&Ls extremely vulnerable. To compound matters, money market funds became sources of competition for the S&Ls, which are not allowed to enter into business other than accepting deposits or granting home loans.

Between 1980 and 1982, statutory and regulatory changes gave the savings and loan industry new powers intended to return them to profitability. The S&Ls, for the first time, were given the authority to make acquisition, development, and construction loans. In 1980, Congress also raised the limits on deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000, which was significant because a failed S&L had a negative net worth. By increasing Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) coverage, those institutions that previously would not have been able to pay off their debt could now take more risk to try to work their way out of insolvency so that the government would not have to take them over. In September 1981, The Federal Home Loan Bank Board allowed troubled S&Ls to issue "income capital certificates," which allowed an insolvent institution to appear solvent. In December 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act went into effect. It extended federally chartered S&L powers further, putting S&Ls on a more equal footing with commercial banks. This caused a massive defection of state-chartered S&Ls to the federal system. In response, California, Texas, and Florida allowed state-chartered S&Ls to invest 100 percent of their deposits in any ventures they desired. Deregulation caused the industry to grow just when the Federal Home Loan Bank Board decided to reduce its regulatory and supervisory staff. The savings and loans took advantage of the real estate boom and high interest rates of the early 1980s and lent far more money than was prudent, especially to risky ventures that many S&Ls were not qualified to assess correctly.

The relaxation of accounting rules led to fraud and other crimes within the government and the savings and loan industry. This criminal behavior, combined with customer defaults and bankruptcies, led to a massive failure in the industry. In 1980, there were 4,002 active S&Ls. By 1983, 962 of them had collapsed. Some, like Empire Savings of Mesquite, Texas, failed because of "land flips" and other illegal activities. Empire's failure would go on to cost taxpayers roughly $300 million. By 1987, losses at Texas S&Ls made up more than half of all S&L losses nationwide. Of the twenty largest losses in the country, fourteen were located in Texas. The losses sent the state's economy into a major recession. Crude-oil prices dropped by half, office vacancies rose to 30 percent, and real estate prices completely collapsed.

Charles Keating (1923-), the former head of Lincoln Savings of Irvine, California, is probably the most notorious figure associated with the S&L crisis. Keating admitted to committing bankruptcy fraud by taking $1 million from the parent corporation of Lincoln Savings when he knew the corporation was due to collapse in a matter of weeks. He was convicted of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy in 1993 and went on to serve four and a half years in prison. The Lincoln failure was estimated to have cost taxpayers over $2 billion. Before Keating was convicted, Edwin J. Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, was summoned to the office of Senator Dennis DeConcini (1937-). DeConcini and Senators John McCain (1936-), Alan Cranston (1914-2000), John Glenn (1921-), and Donald Riegle (1935-) questioned Gray about the appropriateness of Bank Board investigations into Keating's Lincoln Savings. Because Keating contributed campaign funds to all five senators, they became known as the "Keating Five." DeConcini, Cranston, and Riegle were forced out of politics as a result of the scandal, but McCain and Glenn were exonerated of all charges of influence-peddling.

In 1988, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board reported that fraud and insider abuse were the most aggravating factors in the massive wave of S&L failures. A year later, President George H. W. Bush presented his plan to bail out the thousands of failed S&Ls. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) abolished the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC. It shifted S&L regulation to the newly created Office of Thrift Supervision and moved the deposit insurance function to the FDIC. The Act also created the Resolution Trust Corporation to resolve the insolvent S&Ls. Other major provisions of FIRREA included the allocation of funds to the Justice Department to help finance the prosecution of thrift crimes. In 1990, the Crime Control Act mandated a study by the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement to research the causes of the S&L crisis and come up with suggestions to prevent future scandals.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1989, newly elected President George H. W. Bush unveiled a plan to bail out over one thousand failed savings and loans institutions. The massive failures constituted a crisis that has been interpreted in many ways. Some believe it was the greatest scandal in American history.

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how these terrible company's got away with what they did. They made everything seem so much better so then people would give them there money. When they got there money they just basically throw it away. Leaving people losing millions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Savings & Loan Debacle of the Late 1980s (Part One)

# data[].attributes.body
The Saving and Loan bailout hurt many people. Anyone that used this company lost all their life saving. These company's would use the money to make bad investments. Then when the company lost there money they did not care because it was not there money to lose.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 1980s, the financial sector suffered through a period of distress that was focused on the nation’s savings and loan industry.

# data[].attributes.body
This piece of propaganda shows how the saving and loan company's are just taking all your hard earned money. In these piece they are taking apart the dollar bill and putting it into there pockets. Basically taking money that is not there money to take.

# data[].attributes.body
When Reagan became president he wanted to fix the economy for during the early 1970's the Supply Side theory was created in favor of that. Reagan's plan started working and therefore unemployment dropped when the year of 1984 came around. The economy started to boom in a matter of helping the people in need that lived in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

There was a story that circulated within the Washington Beltway during the 1980s that "Reaganomics" began as a doodle on a cocktail napkin as two economists employed by the Reagan administration sat whiling away happy hour in a Washington, D.C. cocktail lounge. The story may or may not be true, but at least it has the ring of truth. The term "Reaganomics" was derived from the name of its best-known supporter, fortieth U.S. President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989). Reagan, however, did not originate the theory. Reaganomics, also called supply-side economics or trickle-down economics, is based on a thing called the "Laffer Curve."(It was the Laffer Curve that was supposed to be the subject of the doodle.) The economist Arthur B. Laffer is the true creator of the supply-side theory. He asserts that high marginal tax rates and government regulation of industries discourage private investment in areas that stimulate economic growth, and that if the taxes and the regulation go away, the additional capital available to the private sector will "trickle down" to the rest of the population. Supply-side theory gained popularity during the late 1970s, when tax rates were at an all-time high, inflation hovered around 15 percent, oil shortages brought high energy costs, foreign competition took profits from domestic operations, and the business community complained about confining government regulations.

The theories of Milton Friedman, the founder of monetarism and economic adviser to Reagan in the 1970s, also influenced Reagan's economic policies. Monetarism claims that the level and direction of spending on the federal budget is more important than the amount of the deficit, and that a stable monetary policy allows borrowing to finance an unbalanced budget.

Although supply-side economics and monetarism are rival conservative theories, Reagan more or less combined the two when he administered a plan that relied on faith in free enterprise, not in government, as the basis for economic expansion. Reaganomics consisted of four main initiatives: (1) tax reductions that would encourage investment and production, (2) spending cuts that would reduce the size of government, (3) elimination of federal regulations that were constricting business growth, and (4) a stable monetary policy that would keep inflation under control.

In 1982 as a nation in recession witnessed tax cuts, defense weaponry buildup, and a reduction in services for school lunch programs, the New York Times named Ronald Reagan's economic agenda "Reaganomics." By 1984 however, the economy had turned and inflation and unemployment dropped dramatically. The United States maintained an economic boom that lasted for the remainder of the Reagan administration.

The president's policies have continued to be an issue of critical debate. Supporters of Reaganomics claimed that by adopting supply-side economics, the Reagan administration conquered the inflation that plagued the economy during the 1970s and set the economy on the tracks of the longest peacetime economic recovery in U.S. history. Opponents of Reaganomics argue that huge tax cuts were simply a gift to Reagan's political constituency among the rich even though it brought a doubling of the federal deficit.

True to his agenda, Reagan brought some of the largest tax cuts in history. According to Reaganomics, lower taxes prompted corporations to invest, leading U.S. consumers to buy more. As the economy grew, thanks to increased consumer spending, they would indirectly raise government tax revenues. The trend would "trickle down" to benefit even the poorest U.S. citizens. An initial shock to these new policies led to a recession in the early 1980s, but by 1984 the economy began to surge, inflation leveled and unemployment dropped.

Still many experts believed that the middle class and the poor did not benefit from Reaganomics. It was widely reported that the share of income going to the wealthiest 20 percent of the nation's population nearly doubled during the Reagan era, while the share going to the remaining 80 percent fell to its lowest level since the mid-1940s. Yet almost everybody but the very poor were better-off.

Reaganomics also encouraged many industries to deregulate during the early 1980s. At first, deregulation led to greater competition and lower prices for consumers. Diminished government supervision, however, also brought about problems. By the mid-1980s, the savings and loan industry collapsed amidst fraud and mismanagement. In the airline industry, deregulation led to the failure of many airlines, while others were bought out by rival airlines; the ultimate outcome was less competition and higher ticket prices.

The Reagan era also produced a large increase in the federal budget deficit (the difference between money the government spends and the amount it earns through taxes and other sources). When Reagan's policies were put in effect in the early 1980s, tax cuts did stimulate the economy, but Federal spending continued to grow, because of the refusal of a Democratic Congress to cut domestic spending as dramatically as Reagan wanted. There was also an increase in borrowed money to fund the creation of defense weaponry at the climax of the Cold War and.

Ronald Reagan served two terms as U.S. president. Reaganomics contributed to the creation of more than 20 million jobs and a $1 trillion federal deficit. Some economists say that Reagan's policies were ultimately a failure that should never be repeated, although others argue that Reagan's polices have been clearly vindicated over time by our increasingly prosperous society. Regardless of opinion, the effects of Reaganomics were felt well past the end of Reagan's terms of office. Ronald Reagan himself once remarked that "the best sign that our economic program is working is that they don't call it Reaganomics any more."

Ronald Reagan himself once remarked that "the best sign that our economic program is working is that they don't call it Reaganomics any more."

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There was a story that circulated within the Washington Beltway during the 1980s that "Reaganomics" began as a doodle on a cocktail napkin as two economists employed by the Reagan administration sat whiling away happy hour in a Washington, D.C. cocktail lounge.

# data[].attributes.body
Many families believe that money can be put in the hands of the wrong people. Some money can put it to waste and their will be no benefit to the economy. Reagan could easily fix that with his Supply Side plan to fix the economy through the government and the people.

# data[].attributes.body
Reagan's Reaganomics plan had many names and the Trickle - Down Effect was one of them. His plan was to cut taxes for the wealthy so they could be on the same line of the lower class citizens. Later Reagan wanted those who paid the most for their taxes could start to reinvest their tax savings which then led tot the Trickle - Down Effect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: U.S. History

Uncover information on hundreds of the most significant people, events, and topics in U.S. history from a variety of sources.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: U.S. History Uncover information on hundreds of the most significant people, events, and topics in U.S. history from a variety of sources. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
President Reagan was elected in 1980 and had amazing plans to help save the economy. He wanted to help people with their taxes and reduce the amount people would generally pay. He did this for the better of the people and I think he did a very good job at following through with all the plans he had directed towards the economy.

# data[].attributes.headline
What this did during Reagan's Reaganomics plan

# data[].attributes.subject
What this did during Reagan's Reaganomics plan

# data[].attributes.body
Reagan's plan was easily one of the best plan's he could have put together. All the four steps that reaganomics did helped Reagan's full presidency and his very good reputation with the people. Learning more about Reagonimcs made me realize Reagan was one good president for how he tried to fix the economy.

# data[].attributes.body
The Stock Market Crash of 1987 was the most drastic one-day crash in American history. It was over a much shorter period than The Great Depression, but an estimated $1 trillion dollars was lost from the market in this short period. Although the crash was drastic, the market recovered fairly quickly.

# data[].attributes.body
The crash on Black Monday not only caused panic in the US, but also in many big cities around the world. Tokyo, London and Frankfurt were all sent into a panic. The shocking drop seemed sudden, and places like Japan were dealing with the crisis before the West was even awake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 1987 stock market crash: Original news report

# data[].attributes.body
On October 19, 1987, also known as Black Monday, the stock market suddenly dropped by 500 points when stockholders began to drop their stocks. This was due to a steady decrease in stock prices, and this caused a large panic that lead to the eventual crash. Solving this issue was hard, because now, no one wanted to buy stocks. many wanted to sell stocks, but the lack of activity made it hard for things to be fixed immediately.

# data[].attributes.body
The Stock Market Crash of 1987, to many, was not a surprise. But, it was also a huge exaggeration compared to what should have happened. With everyone panicking and dropping stocks, things only got worse. So, although the crash was inevitable, its severity could've been avoided.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1987 Stock Market Crash (stock footage / archival footage)

# data[].attributes.body
Ronald Reagan, the president at the time of the crash, found it essential to stay calm. After a huge panic had spread throughout the country and many other countries, he found it important to keep calm to help things get better. In this speech, for example, he assured listeners that plans were being put into place, and additional actions could be taken if needed. He also noted that no stock markets would close, and trade would continue to stay open.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Reagan announced the administration's response to the over 500 point decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on Friday... read more

President Reagan announced the administration's response to the over 500 point decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on Friday October 19, 1987. It included meeting with congressional leaders on ideas to address to volatility of the stock market and a longer-term commission to study the stability of the market. He said that the meetings should address all options, including raising taxes.

He also answered questions about Persian Gulf policy, the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and the function of an AIDS commission. close

Report Video Issue

Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos.

Related Video

Stock Market and Administration Economic Policy

Editor Mark Tapscott of the The Washington Times spoke with viewers and the host about possible federal responses to...

Representative Jim Leach of Iowa (R), a member of the House Banking and Finance committee, talked about the response of...

Texas businessman H. Ross Perot spoke to bankers and reporters about the recent fall in stock market prices, how the...

American Bankers Association President Charles Pistor spoke to bankers and employers about how market volatility could...

User Created Clips from This Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Reagan on Stock Market Turbulence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Reagan announced the administration's response to the over 500 point decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on Friday October 19, 1987. It included meeting with congressional leaders on ideas to address to volatility of the stock market and a longer-term commission to study the stability of the market.

# data[].attributes.body
Between 1981 and 1985, budget deficits almost quadrupled, and national debt could have doubled. After World War II, budget deficits were a regular occurrence as a result of buying war materials and other war expenses, but it had never gotten this bad. As an attempt to stop these problems, taxes were raised and laws were created to stop federal spending.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal spending was a huge factor of the growing budget deficit, so the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Act was made, (also known as the Gramm-Rudman Hollings Act.) This act authorized mandatory federal spending reductions as a way to have more control over the deficit. In 1985, the growth of federal spending was cut to 4% per year.

# data[].attributes.body
Between 1980 and 1988, The U.S.’s real per-capita income grew yearly at 2.1%. This is a lot more than it was in the 70’s, where the per capita income grew at 1.74% per year. Real per-capita income grew 20% faster during 1980-88, where deficits nearly doubled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AMERICAN ECONOMIC performance has not been adversely affected by the large budget deficits of the 1980s. Real per-capita income grew annually at 2.1 per cent between 1980 and mid 1988, versus 1.74 per cent during the 1970s, when deficits as a share of GNP were about half the average level for the 1980s.

These simple statistics do not "prove" that a higher deficit relative to GNP was responsible for the higher growth rate of the economy. They do, however, require those who claim that large deficits result in worse economic performance to explain why per-capita real income grew 20 per cent faster during the 1980-88 period, when deficits as a share of GNP nearly doubled.

Stronger economic performance during the 1980s, when American deficits were unusually large by historical standards, may be due to the fact that our deficits were not unusually large by international standards. Nor has our national debt been unusually large relative to GNP by either historical or international standards.

The American deficit-to-GNP ratio peaked at 6.3 per cent in 1983. Canada and Japan experienced similar ratios during the 1980s. The American debt-to-GNP ratio rose sharply from about 26 per cent in 1980 to a peak of 43 per cent in 1987. It is now headed down. A ratio of national debt to GNP in the 40 to 50 per cent range is typical for industrial countries and in fact is considerably below the ratios of Canada, Italy, and Japan.

These average figures do mask a time during the mid 1980s when American budget deficits were in what most economists considered a danger zone. Projections forward from 1983-85 showed continued deficit escalation and a sharp rise in the debt-to-GNP ratio. There was at that time a possibility, although a remote one, that American deficits would get so large and debt would rise so much faster than GNP that the interest on the debt could, Third World style, eventually come to consume most of government revenues.

However, in the fall of 1985 Congress passed the draconian Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction bill, Crude as it was, it worked. In the ten years before 1985, federal spending rose at an average of 11 per cent a year. Between 1985 and 1988 the growth of federal spending was cut to 4 per cent a year.

As a result of the slower growth of federal spending and some payroll and corporate tax increases, our deficit has come down to about 3 per cent of GNP. Gradually, over the next four years, even if nothing additional is done, the deficit will fall below 2 per cent of GNP, well below the average figure of 2.4 per cent for 1973-1980. At the same time the debt-to-GNP ratio will fall to about 40 per cent because the total output of the economy will be rising faster than the national debt.

The deficit can be eliminated, if that is what we want, by holding the growth of spending to 4 per cent a year between now and 1993. This will eliminate the deficit with no new taxes. Since spending growth is currently scheduled to average more than 5 per cent between now and 1993, some additional cuts will be needed.

Tax increases do not seem appropriate unless Americans want a much larger Federal Government. Revenues will average about 19.3 per cent of GNP over the next four years, some three-quarters of a per cent or about $40 billion a year higher than the postwar average.

The politics and arithmetic surrounding the federal budget suggest a pattern for spending cuts. The growth of entitlements (the largest category of federal spending, including Social Security, Medicare, and civilian and military retirement) could be cut to two-thirds of the normal full inflation adjustment. That would yield 1989-93 savings of $81.6 billion ($30 billion in 1993 alone), But to succeed politically that approach would require more new taxes to get Congress to go along, and the new taxes would very probably be spent by Congress.

The fact that entitlements (including Social Security) and interest on the debt together total more than 60 per cent of federal spending means that if they are not to be cut, their share of total spending will rise at about 5 per cent per year. If a "real freeze" is applied to defense spending so that defense outlays just keep up with inflation, about one-quarter of spending will have to rise at 4 per cent per year. Arithmetically, the rest of outlays (non-defense discretionary spending) will have to be frozen in dollar terms in order to meet the 4 per cent growth target.

The fact that a modest reduction in the growth of federal spending can balance the budget in four years' time is testimony to the fact that much of the necessary cutting has already been done. That is why the economy has continued to perform reasonably well.

If the President and Congress can repeat the performance of the past three years by holding the growth of spending to 4 per cent a year, the budget can be balanced by 1993. If the economy underperforms or if we have a recession we shall have to wait longer, since holding rigidly to a deficit-reduction path would only exacerbate any economic slowdown.

The budget deficit and what we do about it is not so much an economic issue as it is a political choice about the scope of government. If we want to hold tbe Federal Government's share of national income to about 20 per cent, the average of the postwar period, we must slow spending growth to 4 per cent for the next few years. If, instead, we raise taxes, the Federal Government's share will reach 25 per cent very quickly and we shall as individuals lose control over an additional 5 per cent of our resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AMERICAN ECONOMIC performance has not been adversely affected by the large budget deficits of the 1980s. Real per-capita income grew annually at 2.1 per cent between 1980 and mid 1988, versus 1.74 per cent during the 1970s, when deficits as a share of GNP were about half the average level for the 1980s.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1983, the American deficit-to-GNP ratio was up to 6.3%. At the same time, Japan and Canada were experiencing very similar ratios. The American debt-to-GNP ratio increased from 26% to 43% from 1980 to 1987.

# data[].attributes.body
During the Congressional debate on Budget Deficits in 1983, Sen. Orrin Hatch discussed his thoughts on how to combat the increasing deficits that the United States continues to face. He believes that raising taxes and cutting taxes are not the solution to fixing the problem. The reason for cutting taxes in 1981 was to put pressure on the government to control their spending, but that didn't work either.