We have survived Bill Clinton frankly because, as presidential candidate George W. Bush said, for eight years he has done nothing. Thank God. 

Reagan's legacy includes fundamental changes in the regulatory environment which resulted in the skyrocketing of private investment into the economy. Early Reagan deficits occurred because there wasn't enough cash in the economy. This happened because the economic stagnation that occurred during the previous administration left the economy starving for money. The solution: jump start it. Once Reagan destroyed inflation by reigning in federal spending, and reignited the economy through tax cuts and large investments into the military industrial complex, the groundwork had been complete.

Detractors would dog him and his legacy for years. They called him a deficit spender and accused him of saddling future generations with debt. It wouldn't be until the mid to late 1990's that the long term results of Reagan's policies would be seen.

Once private investments in business and the stock market took hold after 1982, the economy has consistenly and significantly grown every quarter with the exception of the last two quarters of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991 when the transition from the Cold War military industrial economy to today's high tech economy caused an unavoidable, but temporary, displacement of workers. The real proof was in the pudding, however, around 1997 and 1998 when "Bill Clinton's" economy took off like a rabbit.

Fueled by a conservative backlash in the 1994 congressional elections, the Clinton Administration subsequently signed into law tax cuts resulting from the Contract With America. The cuts brought our country somewhat back into line with Reagan-like thinking. President Clinton's motivation of course was to take the credit for the economy. Clinton must have known that the Reagan machine was beginning to sputter after the tax increases he signed into law earlier in his first term rolled the rug back to pre-1982 GDP spending ratios.

Going beyond just the philosophical bickering, there is a core bitterness which lies in the hearts of conservatives when they hear critics today still pointing out that President Reagan's weakest area of domestic policy was his budget deficits. Yes, they are right. The primary cause of Reagan's second term deficits was, as political detractors say, Reagan's fault. Yes, it is true that Ronald Reagan was willing to use the public "Visa Card" to finance the destruction of the Soviet system of communism.

As it turned out, this most noble cause in the history and destiny of the world derailed humankind from what many believed was a ride straight toward the nuclear anhilation of the planet. And, golly gee, we survived those deficits. Had we ran a surplus and listened to the "guns for butter" liberal rhetoric that was swirling around during the 1984 presidential campaign, chances are we wouldn't be here to talk about how right they were.

Also, it has finally been proven true that supply side economics and growing the GNP really does increase revenue when taxes are cut. The Cold War was one of two variables that delayed that from happening early enough to give George H. Bush a second term. The second variable that detractors seem to forget is that while revenue doubled between 1983 and 1988, government spending nearly tripled.

People who once chided Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan for saying they could grow the economy out of deficits owe them an apology. Those who criticized supply side economics are the same people today who are arguing against tax cuts for the wealthy supply siders who paid for the Clinton legacy by eliminating the deficit with their tax dollars. Al Gore refused to offer across the board tax relief as a reward to the public that gave him the surplus to run on in his presidential bid in 2000.

The fact of the matter is: We have grown the economy out of deficits. The wealthy top 25% pay 65% of the taxes and provide most of the jobs from which the other 75% earn the money to pay their portion of the tax revenue which has steadily increased every year, including those years followed by the Newt Gingrich tax cuts.

Inflation is also gone. With welfare reform, the investible dollar no longer becomes the digestible dollar when it goes from worker and business owner to bureaucrat and benefit recipient. This, combined with an economy tightly run by Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan, has resulted in what liberal economists in the 1970's and 1980's thought could never happen. Yes, we can have low inflation and low unemployment at the same time. Reagan spoke of a government that would remove the anvil of excessive spending and regulation that Americans once carried on their backs.

The best days of "Trickle Down Economics" haven't even happened yet. As a result of the George W. Bush tax plan of 2001, the wealth reinvested in the economy will eventually end up in the panhandler's cup, the union worker's contract, the white collar worker's paycheck and the entrepreneur's bank account. The panhandler, the union worker, the white collar worker and the entrepreneur will have more money to spend or invest. An increase in consumer spending and investment means more money will end up cycling back around into company payroll accounts (if they government keeps their grubby little hands off of it). This means more jobs and a snowball effect on subsequent "trickle down and trickle around" cycles. Combine this with the fact that there is no tax cost to take money we are already putting into social security and put it into private citizen-owned social security investment accounts instead, and the sky is the limit.

Back in 1985, this writer told a classmate at the State University College at Oneonta New York that they should call it "trickle around" economics instead of "trickle down". This interpretation of theory is based on the premise that the smaller the tax bite out of a buck, the more times that buck could go through the spending and earning cycle, and thus the more wealth it could create. The tax revenue created by tax cuts is caused by investment and spending, which gives the government more bucks for the taxable bang while giving the investor more bang for their investible buck.

It could become "gusher around" economics under President George W. Bush. The results of such a "gusher" could actually lead to a condition where people pay more in tax dollars while paying less in tax percentage of their income. In other words, as incomes grow, so will everyone's contribution to the public coffers.

George H. Bush lost the presidency in 1992 based on a misperception. While the economy only went down in the last two quarters of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991, it has gone up every other quarter since 1982. That glitch is easily explained by the grand flexibility our nation displays as an economic power. Within one year, we lost all the economic advantages of the cold war and gained all the economic advantages of a technological revolution. At any other time in this nation's history, the results of our winning the cold war could have devastated our economy for years, possibly decades.

Winning the cold war and the ensuing worker displacement caused by layoffs in the defense industry temporarily stifled the economy during Bush's presidency. This was merely a small price we had to pay to free the world from nuclear death. To have kicked out the president who won Desert Storm and held the economy steady during hard times is one of the greatest injustices the American people could have ever bestowed upon its leader. But, it takes hindsight to remind us that sometime we need to look at the bigger picture when judging our political candidates. Our nation has made it up to George H. Bush by electing his son to the presidency. 

It is truly exciting to watch the philosophy work. All of the things Ronald Reagan stood for and put into place are finally coming to fruition. He is truly one of the greatest American presidents ever. Our nation will be a better place because his ideas have become our ideas.