"For those of you who don't understand Reaganomics, it's based on the principle that the rich and the poor will get the same amount of ice. In Reaganomics, however, the poor get all of theirs in winter"

Mo Udall employs a striking metaphor to critique Reaganomics, the economic policies championed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. By referring to "ice" as a stand-in for economic resources or prosperity, he comments on the promise that both the rich and the poor are entitled to the same fundamental benefits. The model behind Reaganomics, often described as supply-side economics, posited that reducing taxes and regulations for the wealthy and businesses would spur investment, economic growth, and, ultimately, benefit all segments of society through a "trickle-down" effect.

The metaphor takes a cynical turn when Udall asserts that, under Reaganomics, the poor receive their “ice” exclusively in winter, while the implication is that the rich get theirs in more favorable circumstances, or perhaps at all seasons. Winter, in this context, signifies hardship and discomfort. Ice, while technically valuable, everyone gets the "same amount", is functionally useless or even detrimental to the poor when they most need warmth and relief. What this illustrates is that equal allocation on the surface does not guarantee equitable outcomes. The poor may technically receive something, but what they get arrives at a time, or in a manner, that is of little practical benefit, potentially worsening their situation rather than improving it.

Udall’s statement functions as a critique of the perceived failures of trickle-down economics, suggesting that while resources may be distributed, the timing and context make them ineffectual for those most in need. The policy, in his view, overlooks the realities of poverty and fails to meet the different needs of individuals at varying economic levels. Ultimately, the metaphor draws attention to the limitations of policies that assume uniform measures can create fair outcomes, and to the possible unintended consequences of economic systems that purport to benefit everyone but, in reality, disproportionately serve those already advantaged.