Bush vs. Reagan
On spending, there's no comparison, says American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy:
President Bush, like Reagan, has implemented large across-the-board tax cuts and has boosted defense spending. The analogy is tempting but incorrect. President Reagan's legacy includes his courageous and largely unappreciated willingness to fight for reductions in domestic spending. By contrast, President Bush has engaged in large, nondefense domestic spending.
Ronald Reagan sought--and won--more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term. George W. Bush, in contrast, increased real nondefense spending by at least 25.3 percent during his first term.
Whole thing here.
[Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"During his first term"? What other term is there? What in the hell? Is there something going on up in the halls of evil that we don't know? Is the election already fixed? Dub only has one term. So what is that about?
Brad deLong has a legitimate gripe about this report:
Actually, no he doesn't. See Daniel Drezner's refutation here.
The AEI was discussing federal spending. Brad's "gripe" discusses federal spending as a percentage of GNP. Under Clinton, domestic spending grew substantially -- the economy just grew faster, resulting in a smaller overall percentage. Reagan pushed for, and made, cuts in domestic spending; the Clinton-era government just had more money to spend.
Dan,
Thx for the link. I agree with Drezner's point. The denominator matters.
Reagan's willingness to fight included not only the "veto" threat but also threatening to call out by name, Democrats and in some cases Repiblicans who didn't vote for the cuts and to campaign against them as well.
President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in one of his terms (a total of 40.1 percent during his second term).
I remember how the left and the unions screamed about this.
Reagan managed to cut the budget of the Department of Commerce by 29 percent during his first term and by 3 percent during his second.
These were cuts in corporate welfare. Busines Week, the most statist of the business mags did some complaining.
Buying votes is getting more and more expensive.
William Blackstone, famous judge and author of law from 18th century England once said, concerning enfranchisement:
"If these persons had votes [meaning common men of no land ownership] they would be tempted to dispose of them under some due influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty."
He was referring to both the danger of land owners forcing their tenants to vote a certain way as well as demogoguery.
The orginal idea of land ownership being required for enfranchisement sprang from a sound concept. One of only letting those vote who have some stake of responsiblity in the community.
Of course land ownership isn't a feasible measure today but there are things that could be done to make the average voter a more responsible voter and thus remove some (not all of course - ever unfortunately) but some of the vote buying through such policies.
[warsie]Clearly the author of this report criticizing our Glorious Maximum Leader is nothing but a French mole.[/warsie]
President and Term, Number of Budget Cuts
Johnson, 4 out 15
Nixon, 3 out 15
Carter, 5 out 15
Reagan 1, 8 out 15
Reagan 2, 10 out 15
Bush 41, 2 out 15
Clinton 1, 9 out 15
Clinton 2, 0 out 15
Bush 43, 0 out 15
I wonder how the budget cuts in Clinton's 1st term were distributed between the two congressional sessions. The GOP took he House and Senate in the 94 elections.
Also, I think we should email the AEI piece to our GOP congressperson: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
and/or other GOP congressional and even local candidates and tell them that this is the Reagan record we want them to emulate.
Brad deLong has a legitimate gripe about this report: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001014.html
Hey, where's Ford in that list?
z