To The Sentinel:
“There you go again revisited” was a good editorial, except for a couple of things.
The “Reagan” tax cuts “mostly for the rich” (which included me and almost everybody else working at other than minimum wage) did indeed see benefits “trickle down.” By reducing the top rate from 70 percent to 38 percent and rates below almost proportionately, employers were able to reinvest in modernizing, raise pay and hire more employees. The result to the government was, as you pointed out, revenues that doubled, allowing those who must spend every penny they see (and more) to double government spending. The result of all of this has been economic growth that has continued almost to this day.
I was a common worker when Reagan was elected. I retired with a fairly reasonable income and decent investments made because of the benefits that “trickled down” to my level.
Clinton did not cut spending. The “Clinton cuts” were passed by a Republican Congress, over his objection. Have you forgotten the Clinton tax increase?

Mark Balcom
Cedar Hills