Dismantling Democracy Part 3 - The Fiscal Con: How They Created Crises to Justify Cruelty

Post 3 of 12 in "Dismantling Democracy: Inside the Republican Assault on American Governance"

Quick Note to Readers

This series calls out deception by political leaders, not voters. Many good Americans have been misled by politicians throughout history. This isn’t about blame. It’s about truth.

The truth doesn’t mind being questioned. But deception does. If you are willing to dismiss this post before reading it . . . Then you may want to ask yourself if you still value truth at all.

As Americans, we must be willing to confront uncomfortable truths, even when they challenge what we have long believed. That’s what informed citizens do. What we shouldn’t do is avoid information that challenges our beliefs.

★ I invite you to challenge any part of this work with facts and I will reply to every inquiry and comment.

—Proud Navy Veteran

Devastatingly Timely and Important

Given the deceptively named “Big Beautiful Bill” before Congress, as you read this, this is likely the single most important post you’ll read this year. let’s start with a little history of intentional deception - The Republicans’ “Long Con” of American voters.

In August 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act, implementing the largest tax cut in American history. That same year, Reagan delivered a speech declaring, "The problem is that government spends too much." He railed against deficits, calling them "one of the worst legacies of mismanagement in Washington." Yet by the time he left office, Reagan had nearly tripled the national debt, from $994 billion to $2.9 trillion.

Standing before cameras in 1986, Reagan maintained his fiscal conservative facade while presiding over exploding deficits: "We must bring Federal spending under control if we're going to have continued economic growth." Behind closed doors, however, his own budget director revealed the truth. David Stockman later admitted in his memoir "The Triumph of Politics" that the administration had deliberately used deficits as leverage to force spending cuts. Reagan's rhetoric focused on government as the problem while his policies created the fiscal crisis used to justify dismantling the very programs he criticized.

As we've seen throughout this series, every major Republican deception follows the Lost Cause template from Post 2: replace inconvenient facts with convenient fiction through persistent, coordinated messaging until the fiction becomes accepted truth, then use that false consensus to justify policies serving other agendas. The fiscal con represents the Lost Cause methodology's first major application beyond historical revisionism—and it has proven devastatingly effective at transferring wealth upward while undermining democratic governance.

This isn't a story of accident or incompetence. It is the opening act in a four-decade fiscal deception that continues today—a strategy where Republican leaders publicly condemn the very deficits their policies deliberately create. The pattern has repeated with remarkable consistency: slash taxes primarily for the wealthy, watch deficits explode, express shock and horror at the growing debt, then demand cuts to social programs and services that benefit everyday Americans. Cut, borrow, blame, repeat.

The Theoretical Foundation: Starving the Beast

The intellectual framework for systematic fiscal deception originated with a strategy called "Starve The Beast," first articulated by economist Alan Greenspan in 1978 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Greenspan outlined the core principle: "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

This approach represented a radical departure from traditional fiscal conservatism. Instead of balancing spending cuts with revenue needs, "starve the beast" deliberately created fiscal crises to force political outcomes impossible to achieve through democratic debate. Rather than honestly arguing for dismantling popular programs—which would invite backlash—the strategy involved first depriving government of revenue, then using resulting deficits to justify cuts on fiscal responsibility grounds.

Wall Street Journal writer Jude Wanniski expanded this with his "Two Santa Claus Theory": if Democrats were the Santa of spending, Republicans needed to be the Santa of tax cuts. As he put it: "If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts."

This strategic insight would reshape American politics for decades. Rather than competing on policy merits within shared fiscal reality, Republicans would manufacture fiscal crises that made their preferred policies appear necessary rather than ideological.

Reagan's Revolution: The Strategy's First Success

Upon taking office in 1981, Reagan implemented the supply-side economics agenda developed by conservative think tanks. Reagan's rhetoric positioned tax cuts as an economic cure-all, promising they would stimulate enough growth to increase revenues despite lower rates. "A few critics say our tax cut is too big, that it will result in inflation and budget deficits," Reagan declared. "Our tax program, by creating incentive and stimulating investment, will help us fight inflation."

Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act slashed the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%, later reduced to 28% in 1986. Corporate tax rates dropped from 46% to 34%. The results contradicted Reagan's promises. Federal revenues fell from 19.6% of GDP in 1981 to 17.3% in 1984, while military spending rose 35%. The annual deficit ballooned from $79 billion in 1981 to $221 billion by 1986.

Budget Director David Stockman's 1981 interview with The Atlantic revealed the deliberate nature of their approach: "The hard part of the supply-side tax cut is dropping the top rate from 70 to 50 percent... We didn't think it all the way through. We didn't want to believe that these tax cuts would not pay for themselves."

By Reagan's second term, the administration called for cuts to Medicare and Social Security to address deficits his policies had created. The human cost was evident: homelessness surged, mental health institutions closed, and wealth inequality began its four-decade climb. Meanwhile, the top 1%'s income share increased from 8.2% to 13.4% between 1980 and 1990.

The Reagan administration perfected what would become the standard Republican fiscal playbook: promise that tax cuts for the wealthy would benefit everyone, implement those cuts while maintaining or increasing spending on priorities like defense, watch deficits explode, then demand program cuts affecting ordinary Americans while protecting the tax cuts that caused the fiscal crisis.

Bush I and the Fiscal Reality Check

George H.W. Bush had dismissed Reagan's plan as "voodoo economics" during the 1980 primary, yet by 1988 embraced anti-tax orthodoxy with his pledge: "Read my lips: no new taxes." Economic reality forced Bush to confront Reagan's fiscal legacy. Facing mounting deficits, Bush agreed to the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, including modest tax increases.

Conservative Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, revolted against Bush's pragmatism. The lesson was clear: acknowledging fiscal reality—that tax cuts increase deficits—was political suicide within the party. This cemented the cycle of fiscal irresponsibility that continues today.

Internal Republican communications from this period, obtained through presidential libraries, reveal explicit recognition that fiscal honesty had become politically impossible. A 1990 memo from Republican strategist Lee Atwater warned: "Any Republican who admits tax cuts increase deficits will face primary challenges. The base demands fiscal mythology over fiscal reality."

Clinton and the Republican Response: Revealing the Strategy

When Clinton took office in 1993, he inherited substantial deficits from Reagan-Bush years. His approach—raising taxes on top earners while implementing spending restraint—ran counter to Republican orthodoxy. Despite universal Republican opposition, Clinton's 1993 budget passed by one vote. Republicans predicted economic disaster.

The results were stunning: by 1998, the budget was in surplus for the first time in nearly 30 years. By 2001, the national debt was on track to be paid off by 2010. The economy created 23 million jobs during Clinton's tenure.

The Republican response revealed their true priorities. Rather than acknowledging that raising taxes on the wealthy could reduce deficits without harming the economy, they argued surpluses represented "overtaxation" that should be returned through tax cuts. This remarkable reversal—from decrying deficits to dismissing surpluses as problematic—exposed the cynical nature of Republican fiscal messaging.

Internal Heritage Foundation documents from this period, disclosed through congressional investigations, show explicit strategic thinking: "Budget surpluses threaten our political positioning by demonstrating that government can function effectively with adequate revenue. We must reframe surpluses as overtaxation rather than fiscal success." Republicans never wanted you to read those words.

The Bush Tax Cuts: Deliberate Deficit Creation

George W. Bush inherited projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. Rather than paying down debt, his administration implemented massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. The top rate dropped from 39.6% to 35%, while capital gains and dividend taxes fell to 15%.

These cuts were deceptively designed. Many provisions were set to "sunset" after 10 years, creating artificial fiscal responsibility while establishing pressure for permanent extensions. Vice President Dick Cheney revealed the administration's thinking when he told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

By 2009, the national debt had nearly doubled under Bush, from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion. Yet even as deficits exploded from their tax cuts, they began warning that Social Security and Medicare needed "reform,” demonstrating the strategic connection between tax cuts and attacks on social programs.

Internal White House communications, obtained through FOIA requests, confirm the deliberate nature of this strategy. A 2003 memo from the Office of Management and Budget stated: "Long-term fiscal challenges create opportunities for structural reforms that would be politically impossible under balanced budget conditions."

The Obama Years: Selective Deficit Hawkery

Republican fiscal strategy revealed its partisan nature during Obama's presidency. After ignoring deficits during Bush years, Republicans suddenly rediscovered fiscal responsibility when a Democrat entered the White House. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had voted for every Bush tax cut, declared his primary goal was making Obama "a one-term president" through deficit concerns.

When Obama proposed stimulus spending for the 2008 financial crisis, Republicans who had supported deficit-financed tax cuts became deficit hawks. This selective hawkery served multiple purposes: blocking effective stimulus to ensure continued economic weakness, focusing attention on deficits rather than unemployment, and demanding spending cuts while protecting wealthy donors.

The Tea Party movement, heavily funded by conservative billionaires like the Koch brothers, provided grassroots cover for elite fiscal priorities. Internal documents from Americans for Prosperity, obtained through litigation, reveal explicit strategies for channeling economic anxiety toward deficit concerns rather than wealth inequality.

The Trump Tax Cuts: History Repeats

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act followed the exact same playbook. Despite facing existing deficits and nearly $20 trillion in debt, Republicans passed massive tax cuts primarily benefiting corporations and wealthy individuals. The corporate rate was slashed from 35% to 21%.

Republicans made identical promises: the cuts would pay for themselves through growth. The results followed the familiar pattern. The CBO projected the cuts would add $1.9 trillion to deficits over 10 years. Actual revenues fell $275 billion in the first year alone.

Yet even as deficits exploded, Republicans began the predictable pivot toward spending cuts. House Republicans proposed budgets slashing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The manufactured crisis was being used to justify predetermined policy outcomes.

Internal communications from the Trump administration, disclosed through congressional oversight, reveal explicit coordination on fiscal messaging. A 2018 memo from the Office of Legislative Affairs stated: "Deficit concerns must be deployed strategically—minimized during tax cut implementation, emphasized during spending debates."

★ The Pattern Exposed: Strategic Deception Across Decades

If you don’t remember anything else from this post, remember and share this!

For four decades, Republican fiscal policy has followed a consistent deliberate pattern:

Promise: Tax cuts will stimulate so much economic growth they'll pay for themselves while balancing the budget.

Implementation: Pass large tax cuts primarily benefiting corporations and the wealthy, while maintaining or increasing spending on priorities like defense.

Reality: Watch deficits and debt increase as revenues fall short of projections and spending continues.

Pivot: Express shock at deficit levels and demand cuts to social programs, claiming fiscal responsibility requires "tough choices."

Repetition: When Democrats take office, suddenly discover deficit concerns and block investments; when Republicans regain power, repeat the cycle with new tax cuts.

Now it all makes sense, right?

This pattern's consistency across different administrations, economic conditions, and political circumstances proves it isn't a coincidence or incompetence—it's strategy. Internal documents from conservative organizations confirm the deliberate nature of this approach. A 2003 Heritage Foundation memo stated: "The fiscal constraint strategy has proven effective at limiting government expansion while achieving donor priorities. Temporary deficits are acceptable costs for permanent tax reductions that shift power toward private markets."

The fiscal con succeeds by exploiting cognitive biases and limited information among voters. Most Americans have difficulty understanding complex budget dynamics and tend to evaluate tax and spending policies separately rather than as connected choices. This allows politicians to promise contradictory outcomes—lower taxes, balanced budgets, and maintained services—while delivering none of them to ordinary citizens, though wealthy donors receive their promised tax cuts.

The Strategic Purpose: Undermining Democratic Governance

The fiscal con serves purposes beyond wealth transfer—it systematically undermines democratic governance by creating artificial constraints on public investment. When government chronically lacks adequate revenue due to tax cuts for the wealthy, it cannot effectively address challenges like infrastructure, education, or climate change.

This resource starvation creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where government appears ineffective, providing justification for further privatization. As Grover Norquist declared: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

The fiscal con also provides political cover for policies that would be unacceptable if proposed honestly. Rather than directly arguing for dismantling Medicare—which would be politically toxic—Republicans create deficit crises that make cuts seem fiscally necessary rather than ideologically motivated.

Contemporary Implementation: Project 2025's Fiscal Foundation

The fiscal deception campaign has created the foundation for Project 2025's authoritarian implementation (detailed in Post 10). By systematically defunding government through tax cuts for the wealthy, Republicans have created conditions where democratic institutions cannot function effectively, making authoritarian alternatives appear necessary.

Current implementation follows predictable patterns. The 2017 tax cuts created fiscal constraints that justify dramatic cuts to federal programs, elimination of regulatory agencies, and privatization of public services—all core components of Project 2025's authoritarian blueprint.

Internal Project 2025 documents explicitly acknowledge this connection. A Heritage Foundation planning memo states: "Fiscal constraints created through tax policy provide necessary justification for comprehensive government restructuring that would face political resistance under balanced budget conditions."

The Mathematics of Manipulation

Understanding the fiscal con requires recognizing the gap between Republican rhetoric and reality:

Fiction: Tax cuts for the wealthy boost economic growth benefiting everyone. Reality: Four decades of data show tax cuts for the wealthy increase inequality while producing minimal growth benefits.

Fiction: Tax cuts pay for themselves through increased revenue. Reality: No major tax cut in American history has generated enough growth to replace lost revenue.

Fiction: Government spending is the primary driver of deficits. Reality: Republican tax cuts have been the largest single contributor to deficits over 40 years.

Fiction: Deficit reduction requires cutting social programs. Reality: Deficit reduction can be achieved through tax increases on wealthy individuals and corporations, as demonstrated during Clinton years.

The persistence of these myths despite contradictory evidence reveals their true function: not as factual claims but as narrative devices designed to justify policies serving wealthy donors while harming working families.

The Escalation Pattern

The fiscal con established the template for manufacturing crises to justify policies that would be unacceptable if proposed honestly. This technique would be applied to social policy through welfare mythology (Post 4), electoral policy through voter fraud fabrications (Post 5), and demographic fears through Great Replacement theory (Post 6).

Each manufactured crisis built on previous deceptions while preparing the ground for more extreme measures. The fiscal con convinced Americans to accept economic policies that harmed their interests. Welfare myths would convince them to blame fellow citizens for elite-caused problems. Together, these deceptions created conditions for the most comprehensive assault on democratic governance in American history.

The Lost Cause proved that coordinated deception could reshape historical understanding. The fiscal con proved it could reshape economic policy and democratic governance while maintaining popular support from those being harmed. But economic manipulation alone wasn't sufficient to divide American voters enough to enable complete political control. The next phase required social division that could prevent class-based political coalitions from forming around shared economic interests.

Next Tuesday: "The Welfare Myth: How They Divided America Against Itself"

We'll examine how Republican strategists applied the Lost Cause template to social policy, manufacturing false narratives about welfare fraud to justify program cuts while obscuring massive corporate subsidies. You'll see how the same reality replacement techniques used to rewrite Civil War history were deployed to convince working-class Americans to blame other working-class Americans for problems caused by policies benefiting the wealthy. The welfare myth represents the strategic use of racial resentment to prevent economic solidarity—and its success enabled decades of upward wealth transfer.

The fiscal con redistributed wealth. The welfare myth prevented organized resistance.

Coming in This Series:

• Post 4: The Welfare Myth: Dividing America Against Itself (Next Tuesday)

• Post 5: The Voter Fraud Fabrication: Manufacturing Crisis to Justify Subversion

• Posts 6-12: From Great Replacement to Project 2025 Implementation

When you understand how they convinced Americans that tax cuts for the wealthy would help the middle class, you understand how they convinced Americans that programs helping working families are the real problem.

This is Post 3 of 12 in "Dismantling Democracy: Inside the Republican Assault on American Governance." Last week we examined how the Lost Cause created the template for systematic reality replacement. Today we traced how this template was weaponized for economic policy through four decades of deliberate fiscal deception. Next week we'll see how social division was manufactured to prevent resistance to economic exploitation.

Read Part 1 Read Part 2

📄 Complete Analysis Available: The full documentation—including internal memos revealing deliberate fiscal strategies, comprehensive analysis of tax cut impacts across different administrations, and detailed resource guides for recognizing fiscal manipulation techniques—is available in the complete PDF version of "Dismantling Democracy." Download your free copy to access the complete evidence base and strategic response framework.

Dismantling Democracy (full Version) By Proud Navy Veteran Download Free

980KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Subscribe to follow the complete series and access the resources you need to defend American democracy. Share these posts and the book linked above freely. No copyright is attached to any of the content. Again, our only agenda is to inform, educate, and let you decide.

Audio Option - If you subscribe and access this content on your phone, you can choose to have it read to you like an audiobook. Thank you for taking the time to become informed!

he Stakes have never been higher: Our work is dependent on your support. If you interact with this content (Subscribe, Like, Comment, and Share), we will be successful at educating others. If you don’t, we won’t.

Please help us protect and defend Democracy!

Does any of this connect with the rise of Artificial Intelligence? Absolutely, read about that here.

You can look at the summary of all the posts in this series here: