Posted on 10/28/2007 11:01:19 AM PDT by shrinkermd
...In response, the men seeking the 2008 GOP presidential nomination have largely turned that race into a contest over which candidate can best remind primary voters of Ronald Reagan, the model small-government Republican.
...In his inaugural address in 1981, Reagan said, "It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people." In his farewell address eight years later, the president said, "[M]an is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
But in between the two speeches, government did nothing but expand. In 1981, the federal government spent $678 billion; in 1989 it spent $1.144 trillion. Factoring out inflation, that was an increase of 19% in real spending. Republicans never expected that Reagan would leave office with a "federal establishment" one-fifth larger than when he arrived.
Federal spending, of course, didn't grow just during the Reagan presidency. The Office of Management and Budget's tables show year-to-year federal outlays, adjusted for inflation, decreasing only 11 times between 1940 and 2006. Three of the declines came during the demobilization after World War II, three more after the Korean War and one in 1969 after spending for the Vietnam War crested. The other four reductions were isolated and brief interruptions in the relentless growth of government.
In the 1980s, conservatives charged that the Democratic Congress was frustrating the Republican president's efforts to limit government....Then, for the first time in 50 years, Republicans controlled both Congress and the presidency from 2003 through 2006 -- and real federal spending increased 10%.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Similarly, Reagan failed to become Reagan on the small government issue, but he did give speeches to the contrary. Bush II, the Pubbie Congress had a war to fight and an economy to fix but it is hard to justify the sums spent. These are the problems driving down the Pubbie approval ratings.
Federal Spending has increased under every President. EVERY President including President Reagan has massively increased spending.
In every 2 term President’s term since Carter we have doubled the Federal Budget. Under Reagan it doubled, Clinton added 1 trillion, Bush will add another 1 trillion
The way to measure how effective a President is in controlling spending is to compare Federal Spending to over all GDP. Comparatively Bush has been average. Not as good as Regan about the same as the rest.
Jeez, I just want a good American President that is normal and won’t sell us out.
“Jeez, I just want a good American President that is normal and won’t sell us out.”
And that would be Duncan Hunter. If any candidate out reagans Reagan, it is Hunter!
Exactly we need a real Hunter in the White House..he does not have to out try and out Reagan...
So true.
They’re all bought and sold before they’re sworn in. The only issue is who did the buying and are they you’re friend or enemy.
Reagan’s massive military buildup pushed the Soviet Union into an early grave. I’d say that was money well spent.
He also had to deal with a Democrat Congress who still clung to the Great Society. It would take another ten years to institute welfare reform - under a Republican Congress.
Surprised it took 8 posts for this revelation. Way to go.
You hit that nail on the head.
Got that right! Folks seem to have short memories.
I'd say Reagan did an excellent job reviving the worst economy since the Great Depression, reducing taxes, rebuilding the military and limiting the welfare state. And of course, winning the Cold War.
According to OMB, Reagan reduced the overall size of government by 1.0% of GDP. From 22.2% in 1981, to 21.2% in 1989. Reagan did have success in limiting the growth of the welfare state. He budgets decreased spending on Human Resources from 53.4% in 1981, to 49.7% (11.9% to 10.5% of GDP) when he left office in 1989. Defense spending aside, Reagan had even greater success in reducing discretionary spending. Lowering the Physical Resources budget from 10.5% to 7.5% (2.3% to 1.5% of GDP). Some of the lowest government spending on those functions in 15 years!
With federal income taxes drastically cut 25% across the board and top rates reduced from 70% to 28%, spending, investment and savings skyrocketed. The US economy was on a 17 year boom.
However, Reagan found that enacting policies to actually make the federal government smaller, turned into an effort in futility. Even Reagan's call for a return to Federalism in Executive Order #12612, never reached its full potential. The Democrats led by Speaker Tip O'Neil and later Texas Jim Wright, weren't about to surrender lock, stock and barrel to the Reagan Revolution. They still controlled the House majority and by design, the purse strings.
Reagan did stop the advance of liberalism and the march of socialism for most of his eight years as POTUS. A great achievement by itself.
Bush II figure is an even 20% and he is fighting two wars, had to pay for Katrina and 911.
When he does get into office, hold congress critters to a balanced budget with out all of the frills in it.
The big difference between Reagan and Bush is, where they spent the taxpayers money. Bush IS spending 67% of the annual budget on welfare state and entitlement programs. That is an all time record spending level. At the same time, Bush is spending roughly 20% on national defense, even with Afghanistan and Iraq figured in.
Reagan reduced spending on welfare state programs to as low as 48.6%, while spending upwards of 28.1% on national defense. Reagan also spent a whole lot less on discretionary programs. Bush is not only the biggest spender on welfare and entitlements to ever be POTUS, he's also the biggest spender on the discretionary side since LBJ.
Bush did have Katrina to contend with. Frankly, I found his promises that the Feds would pick up most of the costs for Katrina to be fiscally irresponsible. It shows what a big government Republican, Bush really is. While 9-11 did have serious impact on NYCity economy, it didn't have a wide ranging impact the national economy. Nor did it effect overall government spending.
Btw, Bush never faced the economic conditions Reagan faced in 1981. Inflation, interest rates and unemployemnt where never a problem for Bush during the 2001 recession, like they were for Reagan in the 1981-1983 recession.
When I voted for Bush in 2000, I thought with Republicans controlling the Congress and the White House, they'd make a big dent in federal spending. So far, its been just the opposite. For six years the GOP and Bush spent taxpayers money at an alarming rate. Never before seen in US history.
Bush gets kudos for his tax cuts, which has helped our free market economy to grow. Just not for his liberal spending habits and expanding the government and welfare state entitlements.
For example, let us take just Medicaid and Medicare:
States have wide latitude on what Medicaid insurance covers. This results in some strange consequences. For example, Medicaid in New York costs more than the states of Texas and California combined. The biggest problem is that the program has been expanded by the states and Congress such that if it were to cover only those on welfare 60% would no longer be eligible. Medicaid covers all outpatient and inpatient costs including drugs. It also pays for nursing home care for seniors. Usually there are no deductibles or copays. The average federal contribution is 57% with the rest the responsibility of the states. For children the feds pay 75% of some plans. Some states like New York will provide a month’s supply of Viagra for $2.00; until last year incarcerated pedophiles were obtaining this medication. Controlling costs has been difficult. Reimbursement rates have been cut. Bureaucratic utilization and review efforts have not worked. Not only do a minority of providers steal but States have been found to use Michelangelo-like accounting such that they steal as well. What is even worse, by expanding Medicaid coverage the number enrolling in private insurance has actually decreased. Some studies suggest 20 percent of the Medicaid enrollees are responsible for 80% of the costs. Various possible remedies include block grants to the States, buying private insurance with public funds and HSA like attempts to empower Medicaid recipients. At the very least, Medicaid should not be used to fund nursing home care for people who have hired attorneys to “spend down” assets. No one seems to be anticipating any real changes soon. MILLS REVENGE:Medicare part A is for hospital care, Part B is for outpatient care, Part C is a means to permit HMO participation and Part D is the recently passed pharmacy benefit. Wildly popular Medicare has no elected detractors and is likely to have none. In spite of its popularity Medicare is in the process of failing. Recipients are divorced from payment and costs continue to increase at an alarming rate. The recent ”Medicare Modernization Act”has provided a massive solution to a small problem. Before the plan began 76% had some type of prescription coverage. It is estimated than only 1 in 16 dollars will actually go to seniors who cannot afford drugs. A few efforts at meaningful market reforms may take place beginning in 2010. The passage of this “Modernization Act,” the federal government will become the largest source of prescription drugs in the world. Since there are already price controls for hospitals and doctors, one can easily predict the same for drugs. The growth of Medicare spending suggests it will surpass Social Security spending in 2024. By 2030 Medicare will consume 25% of federal revenue. CHAPTER VI: MILLS REVENGE—MEDICAID: Wilbur Mills added Medicaid to the 1964 Medicare Bill. Medicaid was designed to provide health care for those on welfare. The initial cost was 5 billion a year but presently the cost is 360 billion a year. It is now 16-17% of the entire federal budget.
The quotes are from Gratzer: HERE.
The only thing Dubya has added is the prescription part of Medicare. All the rest is a function of the entitlements that Congress never re-visits; therefore, the costs go up and up. Note, I have not factored in Social Security which is ready to explode upwards as the Boomers begin drawing their checks.
I don't know any fiscal conservative who would agree with you. The fact is, if Reagan was able to negotiate reductions in the rate of growth for welfare state spending with a Democrat controlled House, Bush should have had some success along those lines with a Republican controlled House.
>>>>>The only thing Dubya has added is the prescription part of Medicare.
Exactly! The biggest expansion of the federal bureaucracy since Medicare in 1965, belongs to Bush43. The new trillion dollar prescription drug program marks Bush as a liberal spender in the mold of LBJ!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.