To celebrate our 40th anniversary, every Wednesday The Badger Herald is running classic editorials from our archives. Here we present an editorial board endorsement of Michael Dukakis on the eve of the 1988 presidential election, a sign of the newspaper’s slow moderation. Since 1988, we have endorsed the Democratic candidate in every presidential election.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan swept into office promising to take care of the crippling inflation that had taken hold of the economy, while lowering taxes and decreasing government spending, in order to “get government off our backs.”

Reagan was a new convert to the supply-side theory of economics, whose strongest proponents, Irving Kristol and economist Arthur Laffer, proclaimed that by lower tax rates the government would actually increase revenue, while creating incentives for work, savings and investment.

The tax cut was to be coupled with slashes in the budget, which would offset the tax cut and presumably decrease the government’s role in the functioning of the free market, while significantly increasing defense expenditures.

But what David Stockman, Reagan’s first budget director, found out was that cutting taxes did not lead to an increase in revenue, and what was worse, there wasn’t enough waste in the budget that could be cut given the political realities of congressional pork-barreling. Stockman saw that the combination of low taxes and increased government expenditures would lead to “unfrequented budget deficits.” And it did.

The Reagan administration blames the Congress for more than $1.1 trillion in budget deficits that it has racked up over the last six years. Therefore, even if Congress went along with each of the Reagan budgets to the letter, the deficits and debts would still be enormous. It bears repeating that the Reagan administration has racked up more debt that every other presidential administration in the history of the United States–combined.

Those who balk at such statements inevitably retort that President Reagan is responsible for lowering the inflation that beset the nation during the Carter years and setting America back on its way to economic recovery. What they don’t mention is that the person overwhelmingly responsible for the drop in inflation was Paul Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board–a Carter appointee.

Volcker severely restricted the money supply to lower inflation and held firm against Reagan’s opposition and public outcry that he was strangling the economy. When inflation was finally beat, he was hailed as a hero. The Reagan tax cuts had actually contributed to the persistent inflation by injecting more money into the economy during a time of runaway inflation.

By the time the next president takes office, the national debt will be approximately $32.1 trillion. The interest payments alone on the debt have sapped a large part of Americans’ savings, and we have turned to foreign countries to finance our fiscal irresponsibility. The national debt now takes up 42 cents out of every dollar of income.

If it is true that the country is experiencing the longest peacetime economic expansion in history, and unemployment is lower than it has been in decades, then it is also true that this economic boon was bought on margin, and we’re all going to be paying for it for the rest of our lives. That’s not conservative.

In addition to domestic debt, the United States is saddled with a trade deficit that is undermining American businesses’ ability to compete with the Japanese and others in the world market. Contrary to conventional supply-side wisdom, the strong dollar of the early 1980s did not spur savings, but set off a spending binge among American consumers, who bought up cheap foreign products and sent billions of dollars abroad during the Reagan administration, nearly twice what American industry invested to build and renovate new plants. The United States is borrowing more than half the money to finance the trade deficit from foreign banks, and new investment is flagging.

The borrowing cannot go on forever. Eventually, foreign interest will find us a poor credit risk and refuse to finance American excessiveness, and our own banks cannot afford to bear the burden alone. If, as Ronald Reagan is fond of saying, it is morning in America, then it is time to wake up and face the challenges of the day. If the next administration does not take serious steps to put our fiscal house in order, the economy will sooner or later show us its displeasure.

It is because of this that George Bush’s “read my lips” pledge not to raise taxes is so disconcerting. Bush has tied himself unembarrassingly to the Reagan record and is committed to continuing it in his own administration. He is apparently unaware of, or unconcerned with, the problems that such actions will lead him to, probably within his own term. Nobody likes the idea of raising taxes; it is something that politicians naturally abhor. However, taxes will have to be raised, and everyone knows it, including George Bush. Even Reagan eventually resorted to raising taxes. Bush’s attempts to fool the American electorate are insulting.

Other things being equal, the Reagan administration has done an admirable job in rebuilding American defense systems, which were left sorely in need of improvement by the end of the Carter administration. President Reagan correctly asserts that nothing is too expensive if it is necessary for our national defense. After all, protecting the country is the government’s primary purpose.

Reagan’s economists failed to realize, however, that in the real world, other things are not equal, and according to the laws of fiscal responsibility, the decision to increase defense expenditures necessitates a messing in expenditures elsewhere. Reagan was unwilling to make the tough political choices necessary to keep the system from bankrupting itself.

George Bush plans to carry on in this tradition. If, as it has been said, Ronald Reagan never met a weapons system he didn’t like, then George Bush never met a weapons system he didn’t want.

Bush wants to push ahead with the MX missile, the Midgetman missile, the Star Wars program, and the increase of our conventional arms buildup, in addition to commissioning three new aircraft carriers, while balancing the budget and lowering taxes. Bush had a term for that in 1980 which will not be repeated here.

Even the United States Air Force, which has the deserved reputation for being the greediest branch of the armed forces, has declared that the United States simply cannot afford to pursue all of these weapons systems.

Michael Dukakis has proposed a substitute system for the MX and Midgetman which would be less costly and more stabilizing than the current program. In addition, Dukakis has proposed strengthening the sea-based leg of the triad, nuclear submarines, which are by far the most stabilizing leg of our nuclear defense, because they are nearly impossible to destroy. Moreover, Dukakis has proposed increasing our conventional forces in Europe and pursuing a plan for our NATO allies to start contributing to their own defense.

Currently, the West German and Japanese economies are surpassing ours, while our weakened economy is still saddled with the responsibility of paying for their defense.

Dukakis is in favor of continuing to fund research for Star Wars, but not at the same astronomical level as is currently spent. He opposed the three new aircraft carriers (and has come under much fire from the vice president for it) because there will be no battleship and escort group built to go along with it. An aircraft carrier must have an escort group, or else it is little more than an enormous and expensive bull’s-eye.

The Reagan administration has seen its best success in foreign policy. The Soviet pullout from Afghanistan after nine years of fighting came largely as a result of American funding of Afghan rebels, and American pressure facilitated the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Terrorist activity sharply declined as a result of the American attack on Libyan terrorist camps, and the administration saw the culmination of the INF treaty, which is the direct result of the deployment of mid-range nuclear weapons in Europe.

The Reagan administration has created a consensus on foreign policy: that successful negotiation can only come from a position of strength, and that American firmness when dealing with terrorists pays off.

Although his natural inclination would not be to act as forcefully as the current administration, Dukakis recognizes the successes of the Reagan foreign policy and knows that he must adopt it for the most part to be politically successful. Even Democrats in Congress, who have in the past been accused of being “soft on communism,” are skeptical of arms treaties and want tough action on terrorists. Dukakis is following their lead.

What Dukakis won’t follow, however is Reagan’s embarrassing trade of arms for hostages. After repeatedly saying that he would never negotiate with terrorists, Reagan did just that and supplied them with weapons to use against us and our allies.

The big question mark next to George Bush’s name, one which has not been answered or even vigorously pursued, is how much Bush knew about Iranamock. Bush still claims that he was out of the loop, despite the fact that Secretary of State George Shultz, among others, insists that he was present at dozens of meeting in which the subject was discussed. The whole situation smells like Bush isn’t telling everything, and it makes us wonder when he keeps telling us to read his lips.

The Republican party has proven in the last two elections that it can win without the support of blacks and other minorities, and as a result of its record, it has had to get along without the support of the poor as well. Because they have been successful without this portion of the electorate, they have had no need to address minority concerns and the needs of the poor.

When a government takes it upon itself to give breaks to a section of society, it should pick the section that needs it. In the past eight years, in an effort to turn back the excesses of the Great Society, the Reagan team has given the poor the message that they must follow the work ethic to get ahead in life. At the same time, the Reagan team has told the rich and the comfortable middle class that its own benefits won’t be cut.

The only sector of society that deserves government help was told to help itself, while the richer sectors that did not need the help, yet constituted the majority of the votes for Reagan, were told it is time for a free ride.

By contrast, the Democratic party exists to address the needs of those who have not yet “made it,” and Dukakis is far more likely to address their concerns.

As George Will has written, it is time that we, as a nation, have a leader who asks us to forego the immediate gratification we have enjoyed for the past six years and pay our bills. We are not a nation of teenagers with our parents’ VISA cards. We have no parents to pay the bill…our children will be stuck with it, and that’s a most selfish, dishonest and mean spirited way to run an economic recovery.

Maybe four years in the political opposition will return the Republicans to their proud tradition of fiscal conservatism and responsibility.