Making It Work

  • Share
  • Read Later

(9 of 10)

tried to float the idea of giving the President authority to impound funds appropriated by Congress. That would undercut the Budget Act of 1974, which was passed after President Nixon repeatedly used impoundment to control the flow of federal spending in defiance of congressional wishes. Not surprisingly, Democrats were cool to the idea, saying that the proposal was just a copout for the Republicans.

Rather than slash the budget any further, some Democrats would prefer to roll back part of the tax cuts already passed. Colorado Democrat Gary Hart introduced a bill in the Senate last week that would postpone any personal tax cuts until the budget is balanced.

Despite the loud congressional protests and the worries along Wall Street, the President's program so far appears to retain generally broad public support. A Gallup poll released last week showed that Reagan's approval rating of about 60% has not slipped during this summer's economic slowdown. Interviews by TIME correspondents around the U.S. last week also showed the public's willingness to sacrifice in order to get the economy on the path to steady, noninflationary growth.

More and more people seem to recognize that exorcising inflation can be neither instant nor painless. Says Paul Sullivan, who owns a sportswear manufacturing firm in Methuen, Mass.: "The steps that the President is taking are necessary. It may be tough now, but we can weather it." Says James Graham, a high school teacher in North Little Rock, Ark.: "People are going to have to bite the bullet now, or there isn't going to be any bullet to bite in ten years."

This attitude can even be found among some of the people who are most directly affected by tight money. Says David Brown, a homebuilder in Englewood, N.J.: "I do not want to see my business destroyed, but I'm willing to bear the interim pain if it will help the economy in the long run. We're bleeding. But I think that high interest rates are necessary to slow down inflation."

Corporate executives generally remain as convinced as ever that future prosperity is worth some hardship now. Says Robert Noyce, vice chairman of Intel, a semiconductor manufacturer: "We're somewhat concerned about the transitory period of tight money, but it's part of the medicine we have to take to get the economy to improve." Adds Goff Smith, chairman of Amsted Industries, a Chicago-based equipment supplier: "It's going to hurt a little, but we ought to be glad for a little suffering if it brings the inflation rate down."

To critics who counsel the abrupt abandonment of Reaganomics, some economists suggest a look at the alternatives. Says Walter Hoadley, former chief economist for the Bank of America and now a resident scholar at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif.: "If the Administration backs away from its program under pressure, then the picture gets much worse. Inflation will take over America. Then there goes the dollar, interest rates, everything."

The seven members of TIME'S Board of Economists generally agreed that Reaganomics can work—that the program can curb inflation and revive business growth—if it is given enough time and if Congress implements the full program. Greenspan warned that the policy will not really be in place until lawmakers pass the

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10