The future of America with the Tea Party in control

Twice, the second time after the Medicare Part D act was passed.

 

He was no worse than Reagan so where's the real conservatives denouncing the Gipper?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_17_06_JM.html

Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits
By John McIntyre

Ryan Sager reports that at last week's 33rd annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, on the issue of federal spending many were pushing for a return to Reagan policies versus those of this President Bush. Rep. Mike Spence told the audience:

Whether it's called 'compassionate conservatism' or 'big government Republicanism,' after years of record increases in federal spending, more government is now the accepted Republican philosophy in Washington.

Pence reached for the Reagan legacy, quoting the former President in 1975: "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, simply to swell its ranks."

Andrew Sullivan has also taken to castigating President Bush for out of control spending and ballooning deficits:

Remember when conservatism meant fiscal responsibility? When you add it all up (Bush’s spending), you get the simple, devastating fact that Bush, in a mere five years, has added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. The interest on that debt will soon add up to the cost of two Katrinas a year……

This may, in fact, be Bush’s real domestic legacy. All a Democratic successor has to do is raise taxes to pay for his splurge, and we will have had the biggest expansion of government power, size and responsibility since the 1930s. What would Reagan say?

Well, let’s take a look at the Reagan legacy on federal spending and deficits. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP. (The economy was also a basket case, which is when you would expect budget deficits to be at their worse.) In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

Bush entered office with an economy that was booming: in 2000 government outlays ran at 18.4% of GDP with a budget surplus of 2.4%. But the stock market implosion, 9/11 and the war quickly changed the budget dynamics and the surplus switched to a deficit of 3.5% in 2003 and 3.6% in 2004. In 2005, the budget deficit came in at 2.6%, with government outlays running at 20.1% of GDP.

The point here is that there is lot of hyperventilating about the Bush administration’s spending and “out of control” deficits, much of it by folks who praise Reagan yet trash Bush. But the most recent “out of control” Bush deficit at 2.6% of GDP is far below the eight-year Reagan average of 4.2%.

This is not meant to disparage Reagan, only to provide perspective. When you look at the numbers on a proportional basis - which is the only way to honestly compare different eras - Bush’s federal spending is not “out of control,” at least in comparison to Ronald Reagan.

What is not fully appreciated in analyzing the Bush legacy is that the combination of the stock market implosion (Nasdaq: 5,000 – 1100, S&P: 1500 - 800 ) and the economic impact of 9/11 created a perfect storm of forces that came perilously close to tipping the economy into a deflationary depression. The tandem of the Bush tax cuts (and deficits) coupled with the FED’s fire hose of money led by a 1% FED Funds rate saved the economy from a real disaster. Given the circumstances Bush inherited in his first 18 months in office, the economic growth we have sustained over the last 4 years is nothing short of miraculous. And when it comes to talking about spending and deficits, growth is the most important factor – something critics of the President seem quick to overlook.

It wasn’t Bill Clinton or the GOP Congress that ultimately balanced the budget in the late 90’s, it was the growth of the US economy and the corresponding tidal wave of additional revenue. Conservatives may harp on President Bush for increasing government outlays from 18½% to 20%, but the increase is almost exclusively spending on defense, homeland security and the war - all of which is a response to 9/11. The growth in non-security discretionary spending has been cut every year of the Bush presidency.

Notwithstanding all we have heard recently on earmarks, the real spending problem stems from entitlement programs. Bush spent most of last year trying to get the Congress to proactively deal with the impending Social Security crisis. In the end the President failed, but politically I don’t know that is fair to blame Bush for not reforming Social Security.

The new prescription drug entitlement is a different story, and there is a consensus developing among conservatives that this was a mistake. The reality, however, is that some kind of prescription drug package was going to become law at some point and the White House made a political decision that this bill was good enough to take the issue off the table.

After several years of solid economic growth - with the FED having recouped 14 quarter-point bullets in their holster and with a Republican Congress and Republican President (unlike President Reagan who had to contend with a Democratic House) - it is not unreasonable for conservatives to demand some fiscal restraint. We have seen some attempts to slow the growth in entitlements in the recent budget. Now we’ll see whether Bush and the Congress can follow through and deliver on some of these savings.

The point isn't to say the size of government can't be reduced or Bush can't do a better job on the spending, only that a little historical perspective is in order before people go about trashing Bush's reputation as a conservative using comparisons with Reagan's spending record.

 

Did you even read your own article? Bush's spending was higher as a proportion of GDP (and of course higher overall). Bush also had a net increase in spending as compared to his predecessor, Clinton. Reagan, on the other hand, decreased spending as a percentage of GDP relative to Carter. So Reagan cut spending, Bush raised spending, and you equate them. Reagan ran higher deficits, subscribing to the starve the beast philosophy. It should be noted as well that Reagan was stuck with a Democratic congress. All that being said, yes, Reagan failed to cut spending on a large scale.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

You cons just baffle me, tax and spend is an evil that should be eradicated, but borrow and spend, now that's the Reagan Revolution! Buy some nuclear playtoys now and let the grandkids pay for them.

While Carter decreased the national debt, Reagan increased it by 96.9%! But afterall those taxbreaks trickle down into higher GDP right? Sure because the debt/GDP was increased by 20.6%. Under Carter and a Dem Congress it was decreased by 3.3%. With Reagan you got no bang for your buck. The spending did not increase the GDP nor did the tax cuts increase tax revenues. Effectively it was like working two jobs and a small mortgage and then quitting one of the jobs and buying a McMansion. That's what happened under Reagan and Bush. You are right though, Reagan spent a little less than Carter or Bush and Bush did increase the debt/GDP a bit more 27.1%.

Point is they followed the same model of cut taxes, increase spending, and got the same result huge debt and no economic benefit (increase in debt/GDP).

One is seen as a hero of Conservatives and the other is now a pariah when there is very little difference between their approach, their actions, and the results.

 

I'm actually with Philly when using the term "hypocrisy" b/c it is true if you really think about it. The majority of Americans identify themselves as "conservative"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx .

Ignore the ridiculous political labels of democrat and republican and ignore the ridiculous notion of a two party system for a moment. A conservative believes in self-advancement yet is patriotic and usually of some religous faith. So how does a conservative reconcile self with the good of a nation? How does a conservative take a utilitarian approach? Past history has shown us you couldn't until America came along. I think there is a way to help those less fortunate. Firstly, we have to help people who can still work help themselves. The problem is, what do you do with 65 year old that just can't do it anymore? I think the government has to play a role but that does not mean tax the hell out of people and create systems with massive overhead costs and unsustainable models. Unfortunately, that's what SS and medicare are. I think the government can play a role in medical care by allowing doctors to take in a quota of Patients 65 or over based on geographical and population data and in return eliminate all income taxes on doctor's and their staff so long as they meet the quota of elderly patients. Pricing models could be develped to offset those costs of free visits. It would certainly be an incentive for people to enter the medical field and with a higher supply of this skilled labor, costs would naturally drop. Eliminate the government all together when it comes to healthcare except of course for licensing and continuing education regulation.

 

To be fair, at least from where I sit, Ronnie was several times the president that Junior turned out to be. While Reagan's "successes" have been blown way out of proportion by his fans, especially with the Far Right, Republicans in general are still singing his praises and still attempting to return to that "Shining City on the Hill." A "city" that never existed. There's a romantic notion with Republicans surrounding the "mystique" of Ronald Reagan, a romantic notion I've always found amusing. I've also always thought that a big contributor to that romantic notion was that Carter preceeded him. Hell, a dog catcher would have looked good in comparison. Is that fair? Maybe not, but that's politics. Perceptions can be everything.