Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Punctuating the Republican Equilibrium

Submitted by Jon Henke on Sun, 06/14/2009 - 22:04
in

For Republicans, the words "Ronald Reagan" have become code for "policies and election results I like" (whether or not Reagan-era policies and election results match those of the speaker).  Republicans remember Reagan so fondly because his ideals were powerful, poignant, and his rhetoric was red meat for limited government/national defense Republicans.  Indeed, I suspect we often remember him more for his soaring rhetoric than for the specific details of his governance.

John Harwood's New York Times story, Republicans Rethinking the Reagan Mystique, contains some interesting points.

That’s not to say Republicans disavow Mr. Reagan’s achievements, which include cutting tax rates, presiding over the successful conclusion of the cold war and, as Mr. Obama noted, boosting morale after a period of national self-doubt. [...]

What’s needed instead, said Reihan Salam, co-author of “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,” is “something new — the anti-Obama, anti-Reagan.” [...] Mr. Salam said he favored a new prototype of Republican leadership that projected humility rather than grandeur, understated competence rather than soaring rhetoric and vision. [...]  

There is also the arrival of a new slate of pressing issues. It has been 20 years since Mr. Reagan’s plea to “tear down that wall” was answered by the fall of Communism. The 70 percent top income tax rate Mr. Reagan called confiscatory now stands at half that level. And the cultural appeals he made to blue-collar voters and evangelicals have lost their immediacy, displaced by economic concerns. Many remember that Mr. Reagan identified government as “the problem.” But today an increasing number of voters look to the government for security and stability.

The problem with the Republican fixation on Ronald Reagan - and Republicans say "Reagan" like Smurfs say smurf - isn't with the ideals of limited government that Reagan espoused in 1980.  The problem is that Republicans never evolved past the 1980's.  The conservative movement that arose in the 60's and 70's reached maturity in the 1980's.  That period became the conservative movement's frame of reference; the experiences, lessons and skills learned up to that point became the Republican Party's hammer, and when all you have is a hammer...

The result is two problems...

  • Republicans are still trying to fight the same fights, even though the situation has changed.  It's one thing to mobilize people around tax cuts when you're cutting the top rates from 70% to 28%.  It's a lot harder to persuade people to vote on the difference between 39.6% and 35%.  Republicans are still trying to run against the vulgar great society liberalism of 1979, but (for a variety of reasons) that's just not as relevant to voters.

    •  

  • Republicans are still offering the same solutions.  But over the last few decades, the viable Republican solutions have generally been passed.  Republicans are left advocating "limited government", but they either (a) have no idea how to actually accomplish it (thus, all the kvetching about "spending cuts", yet Republicans can only manage to find a few billion dollars per year), or (b) they're too beholden to interest groups (business money, elderly voters, etc) to stake out a position that would accomplish their goals (lest it endanger campaign funding, a seat in Florida or the mid-terms).

Republicans don't have to abandon Reagan.  Republicans just have to evolve beyond the 1980's.  Unfortunately, the culture, infrastructure and people that reached maturity in the 1980's may now be a barrier to evolution - not because their intentions are malign, but because they are adapted to a strategic and tactical era that has passed.

2.6
Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

Comments

Obama=Carter

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 06/14/2009 - 22:12.

I'm probably the only guy on the site old enough to have lived through the late 1970's. We are reliving that national nightmare.

Had Ronald Reagan been nominated in 1976 I have every reason to believe his agenda would have been portrayed as far less reasonable than the "centrist Democratic agenda" offered by Carter, and Reagan would have lost.  It took four years of Carter in action to turn Democrats into Reagan Democrats. They gave them a chance, they failed, and the other guy's ideas now looked a lot better.

The Democrats control everything now. They have only themselves to blame if things don;t work out. 

Obama=Carter

Submitted by G. A. Harrison on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 07:58.

You're not the only one Ironman.  As a 16 year old HS student I volunteered for Reagan in 1976, much to my family's distress (Rogers Morton, Ford's campaign chair, was a family friend).  You are right that Reagan would have lost had he won the nomination.  However, we also need to remember that in 1980 we were treated no better during the a large portion of the nomination fight.  In fact, many of the same people who claim the mantle of Reagan today were the same one's spitting on him (and those of us who supported him) right up to the convention Detroit.

Another vote for Obama=Carter

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 09:25.

History does relive itself:

1. GOP brand battered (Watergate then, Iraq etc. now)

2. A smiling 'new' guy runs on vague "change" theme (Carter then, Obama now)

3. He beats a moderate Republican who's gotten attacked from the right (Ford/McCain)

4. The new hopey-changey guy turns out to be naive suckup to despots overseas and a hopeless liberal tax-and-spend ignoramus at home. We lose prestige and power in the world and lose economic vitality at home. 

On this score, Obama's economic record is already a failing one - his stimulus was supposed to cap unemployment at 9% and we are already above that... during most of Bush era, unemployment was sub-6%. Should unemployment stay permanently stuck up there, its a telling sign of Obama's incapability of managing the economy for success.

For the young, a simple message: You WILL be stuck with the bill for Obama's deficit and debt spending. You WILL be caught holding the bag for an economy worse off and with fewer and poorer jobs because of what Obama and the Democrats are doing. The 18-29 YO crowd will be fools if they keep flocking to that kind of policies.

I dont think we need a Reagan. We need 10,000 Reagans, running for every Congressional seat, statehouse seat, mayor, governor and local council. With 10,000 articulate believers in core Republican principles standing up for life, liberty and prosperity, we could sweep this country, taking it off the path to an ObamaNation.

Twice this past generation, the liberal Democrats were given the full reins of power, under Carter and Clinton's first two years. What did they do with that power? Higher taxes, more spending, weakness overseas, attacks on the sanctity of life, appointing judicial activist judges who enforce reverse discrimination, attacks on gun owners, and attempts to socialize medicine and control our energy use.  Twice before the American electorate reacted in horror to the disastrous policies of the liberals. Now with bailouts without end, trillion dollar deficits, massive Govt regulations like cap-and-trade and the horror show of massive socialization of healthcare, we have a scenario far worse than ever before.

I am a Reagan Republican in part because I saw the lessons of the Carter era first-hand. Democrats cannot be trusted with the economy, cannot be trusted with our culture, cannot be trusted on foreign policy. They make everything worse.

10,000 Reagans running for office can save America, can restore its greatness and make it once again that 'shining city on a hill'.

Obama=Clinton. No, Truman. No, Lincoln.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 14:56.

Obama = Clinton - he followed a Bush, he inherited a recession caused by Bush policies, Hillary is one of his top advisors, healthcare reform is at the top of his agenda.

No, wait...Obama = Truman - he inheritied a two-front war, he thinks that if you want a friend in Washington, you should get a dog.

No, wait....Obama=Lincoln - he is tall, skinny, funny looking, and the South is threatending to seceed.

If you cherry pick, you can man useless comparision you want.

How about this: Obama = Obama, it is 2009, not 1977.

this has to be the best, most original comment you've made

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 15:19.

kudos!

you are not the only one

Submitted by Ray in TX on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 11:28.

And Obama is not Carter.

The economic situation of this country is quite different than in the late 70s. Carter had to deal with stagflation caused by the oil crisis, and he hired Volcker to break it.

Volcker broke it, but the cost was a extremely painful but short period of high interest rates and unemployment. That, and the Iran hostage crisis, is what gave Reagan his momentum.

The real reason Obama is being compared to Carter is because Republicans are simply HOPING that he's another Carter and so that they can relive their Reagan fetish.

Reagan is popular

Submitted by Chris Palko on Sun, 06/14/2009 - 22:34.

because he won, and he won resoundingly.  His name is invoked as often as Christ because he succeeded.  To be sure, he was generally a conservative President.  But you don't hear Barry Goldwater's name being omnipresent among conservatives, even though they basically agreed on everything.  It's winning 49 states that really represents the magnetism Reagan has on the conservative movement right now.

Presidential names stand for substantive policy issues.

Submitted by T D Williams on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 01:00.

That's why Ironman's comment title "Obama=Carter" resonates.  One might have said "Obama=FDR" except FDR believed in winning wars by using massive resources and taking significant risks if necessary--like Reagan.  So FDR stands against the current liberal foreign policy template that wars are worth winning only if they don't require too much effort.

Central issues continue to be:

1.  Does the government take better care of us than we do of ourselves?  A major subset of that question is:  Are government entitlement programs the way to go?

2.  If we go to war, is fighting to win worth the price?

3.  Is the law (constitutional and common) the basis for our governmental/societal success or a wish list that can be changed when convenient with only minimal impact on our lives and society?

Presidents become associated with those substantive issues. Their names are short hand for societal direction and continue to resonate in political and societal discussion--especially with the electorate.

The two issues you pick are particularly interesting. 

You say tax cuts are not an issue today because tax rates are much lower now.  But, you have misunderstood the central issue.  The "tax" revolution today is about out of control government bailout and stimulus spending.  That has not yet translated to significantly higher taxes or inflation only because others (the Chinese) are currently funding our debt (like banks funded bad mortgages).  Eventually the economic truth of spending massively more than we take in will take effect.  Even President Obama acknowledges that can't go on for much longer.   We are out of government money.  Taxes will have to go up significantly just to fund the interest payments on the debt--let alone repay it.  So taxes and tax rates are a crucial issue today.

You say that Republicans can only find a few billion here and there to cut.  What about the hundreds of billions in the last stimulus package (which almost all Republicans stood against)?  Or Obama's $3.5 trillion budget plan that was passed almost entirely along party lines?  Neither of those are a few billion.

You obviously didn't miss the passage of the stimulus package or the Obama budget.  So, the question is why has the fact that similar issues were raised in the 80's obscured your vision that out of control government spending and soon-to-come high taxation rates are now upon us in spades compared to the 80's?

 

The issue is size/scope/power of Government

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 09:41.

Obama is leading us in a direction where Government spends too much, regulates too much, taxes too much, does to much, meddles too much ... and does it all at mediocre level of competence, partly because it is spread too thin.

You say tax cuts are not an issue today because tax rates are much lower now.  But, you have misunderstood the central issue.  The "tax" revolution today is about out of control government bailout and stimulus spending.

Correct!

Let's start by disputing the claim that tax rates are 'much lower' - we live in a globally competitive environment and the biggest change is that our competitors learned the Reagan low-tax-rate lesson better than we did. Consequently, places like Russia (!!!) have lower personal income tax rates and corporate income tax rates than we do. Our 35% corp. tax rate is the highest in the OECD now! This is a shockingly UN-competitive rate, and Obama wants to make it worse by closing the 'loophole' that allows companies to not pay up on overseas earnings. Do that and you have just killed the competitiveness of EVERY multi-national corporation. Say hello to Toyota/Seimens/STMicro/Sony/Lukoil/BP/Hyundai/TSMC/Lenova triumphing over US-based competitors. Gosh Obama is SUCH an idiot.

Let's add that "cap-and-trade" is just liberal re-marketing on TAXATION OF ENERGY USE. The fact that it is done via Government-defined restricted permits and then sold is no different than a TAX ON THAT RESOURCE. In fact, cap-and-trade is just a more complex and more-subject-to-fraud-and-manipulation version of a CARBON TAX.

Add the tax on smokers Obama passed his firstweek in office.

Add the billions of 'tax loopholes' Obama wants to close. Those 'loopholes' are currently legal ways for people to avert tax burdens - MORE TAX INCREASES.

Add the repeal of Bush tax cuts on higher income earners.

Finally, add the TEN TRILLION in new debt. Deficit spending is just deferring taxation - with interest - to a future date. THAT IS A TAX ON THE NEXT GENERATION.

The idea that taxes are no longer an issue just because tax rates are at (too high 35%) instead of really high 70% is a liberal just showing his ignorance. We have ove a quarter of GDP now going to Federal Govt spending. We pay now or later.

The issue is size/scope/power of Government. The ObamaNation is the wrong direction. We need to replace him and the democrats to stop the socialization of the country.

please, do yourself a favor and read a little history

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:04.

taxes won't go up, that would penalize the working class. inflation will occur, and that will penalize the elderly fixed income non-working class.

it's the only way out of this much debt that has ever worked.

Related

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 02:15.

 

People both on the Left and Right may guess that many on the Left aren't happy with how things are going either, but may not understand the nature and extent of dissatisfaction among the movement progressives . There are ideological between them and the movement conservatives for certain but there sure is/can be a substantial "overlapping consensus"(see the link below) -- on what 'actions' Obama needs to take -- both between their narrow constituencies and more consequentially within the larger political spectrum, excluding the so called extremes or the "Unreasonable"(see the link below). In this regard, here's a very interesting and thought provoking explanation and discussion about Obama at Open Left:

Obama, John Rawls, and a Defense of the Unreasonable by: Nonpartisan  Sat Jun 13, 2009

So, what programs would you cut then?

Submitted by mlindroo on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 05:27.

> You say that Republicans can only find a few billion here and there to cut.  What about the

> hundreds of billions in the last stimulus package (which almost all Republicans stood

> against)?  Or Obama's $3.5 trillion budget plan that was passed almost entirely along party

> lines?  Neither of those are a few billion.

 

Could you please be more specific and state what parts you would have left out?

Henke just pointed out that Congressional Republicans only managed to find a few billions per year to cut! Perhaps because most of the spending initiatives date back to the days of the Bush Administration + GOP control of Congress. So it does seem like significant spending cuts would be problematic.

 

MARCU$

Republicans spent $1 TRILLION less than Dems since Jan 20th

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:02.

(a) have no idea how to actually accomplish it (thus, all the kvetching about "spending cuts", yet Republicans can only manage to find a few billion dollars per year),

I am sorry, Mr Henke,  but this is baloney.  I had to score this as a "1 star" for lack of homework and scoring an 'own goal' on the GOP.  And now you have liberal "MARCU$" following this incorrect thought.

Let me answer the request for specifics:

  • First - the specific Republican proposed savings, when given the opportunity to identify speicifics, was/is not a 'few' billion, but $375 billion ...

http://www.gop.gov/press-release/09/06/04/house-republican-leaders-propose

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), on behalf of House Republicans, today sent a proposal to President Obama outlining $375 billion in taxpayer savings over the next five years. The proposal follows a meeting at the White House on April 24, during which Republican Whip Cantor brought up the President's request to Cabinet secretaries to find $100 million in savings, noting that much more could be done on behalf of taxpayers. In response, President Obama asked House Republicans to develop of list of areas where the federal government could save more money.

Then we have this:

  1. Republicans were against the spending appropriations that Pelosi set at $430 billion and President Bush was stuck at $390 billion. Democrats larded on tens of billions that the GOP opposed.
  2. The SCHIP expansion that Waxman called "a downpayment on nationalized healthcare" was another $90 billion that Bush had previously vetoed and which would not have passed a GOP Congress.
  3. The Obama stimulus was $800 billion, a MASSIVE spending bill that EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST. The GOP alternative had a fraction of the Government spending amounts.
  4. Cap-and-trade - the Waxman-Markey bill is another several-hundred-billion tax-and-spend-and-regulate bill, and Republicans are fighting against that monster.
  5. http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20090609imf.pdf - Opposing the $108 billion IMF bailout/giveaway.
  6. The Obama budget blueprint itself. The Rep Ryan alternative and other GOP alternative were TRILLIONS below the Democrat budget plans. $3.6 TRILLION less in debt over the budget timeframe to be exact: see

http://republicanhousepolicy.com/the-gops-alternative-budget-op-ed-paul-...

In reality, the differences, over the course of the Obama administration, add up to TRILLIONS in less spending. The differences JUST THIS YEAR SO FAR, are about a trillion dollars.

Now, most of this is stopping NEW OBAMA spending, and not advocating budget cuts per se... but it still is a vast, yawning difference, and the GOP should get kudos for standing up and providing alternatives that spend less and tax less.

 

re:

Submitted by Jon Henke on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:26.

I'm much more concerned about the structural spending than the stimulus spending.  But they're "cutting" less than $100b per year.  That's a couple percentage points.  But it's not even a "cut".  They're just restraining the rate of growth.  When did Republicans start calling that a cut?

You're not arguing that Republicans have much in the way of significant structural limitations.  Just that they're grow government somewhat less fast.  That's a lot of the problem.

Obama's spending is ALL about structural spending!

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:41.

I'm much more concerned about the structural spending than the stimulus spending.  But they're "cutting" less than $100b per year.  That's a couple percentage points.

That's a pathetic retort. That was just the first bullet item. What about numbers 1 through 6? TRILLIONS.

Obama's budget blueprint is about $4 TRILLION higher than the GOP / Rep Ryan alternative over the multi-year cycle.

Cap-and-trade? Structural.

SCHIP? Structural.

Stimulus bill? - It in-fills HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in Government spending ... to 2013! That was $1 trillion in "save Big Govt" spending.

Jon, grab a clue, look at the blatant bait-and-switch in ALL the Obama spending programs. It is ALL about structurall increasing the size of the Federal Government. Didnt you get that?

And dont you realize that your goalpost are all wrong? Recall Obama's own "create or save" jobs.  By simply OPPOSING $4 TRILLION in extra Obama/Democrat spending, the GOP is savig us from $4 TRILLION in addon spending.

But it's not even a "cut".  They're just restraining the rate of growth.  When did Republicans start calling that a cut?

DC has ALWAYS called that a cut. But guess what? It was "slow the rate of growth" that was good enough to get the budget balanced in the 1990s under Newt's watch.

Given that Obama is sending us up from 19% of GDP to 27% of GDP in 2 years - I will take "slow growth" in a heartbeat over that.

 

what slow growth?

Submitted by Jason Sterlace on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 21:36.

What about numbers 1 through 6?

I for one am not impressed with the vehemence with which Republicans claim to be for small government while they are the minority party.  That's easy.  But they failed to show that they were serious when they had power.  They'll need something more than the old talking points to convince me that it'd be different the next time around.

Specific GOP Spending reduction proposals

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:06.

Here's a 20 page PDF of the GOP spending reduction proposals - $375 billion over 5 years:

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/newsroom/6.4.09%20Budget%20Savings%20Pro...

As I said in previous comment, the GOP is opposing TRILLIONS IN NEW OBAMA SPENDING and that is the biggest difference - about $4 TRILLION difference - and savings with the GOP, but $375 billion (over 5 years) againt chicken feed either, and certainly beats the Obama sub-$1 billion pathetic cuts he touted.

Just a page or two portion of it here:

BROADBASED BUDGET REFORMS:Common Sense Spending Caps $317 Billion (5 Years)Commission to Review Government Spending IndeterminateRequire New Programs to Be Paid For IndeterminateOpportunity to Review Legislation IndeterminateFOCUSING ON DEFICIT REDUCTION:Devote Repaid TARP Funds to Deficit Reduction $45 Billion + (Current year)CONSOLIDATING PROGRAMS, TERMINATING LOWPRIORITY PROGRAMS, AND REFOCUSING FEDERALPROGRAMS ON CORE FEDERAL PRIORITIES:Consolidate Federal Arts Programs $60 Million (5 Years)Refocus the National Science Foundation on HardSciences $495 Million (5 Years)Refocus the National Park Service on AdministeringFederal Parks $78.5 Million (5 Years)Refocus Federal Land and Water Conservation Funding OnFederal Projects $150 Million (5 Years)Refocus National Archives Activities on Preserving FederalRecords $50 Million (5 Years)Terminate HUD Program for Doctoral Dissertations $1.5 Million (5 Years)Terminate Funding for Unnecessary InternationalOrganizations $417.5 Million (5 Years)Terminate Funding for the National Drug IntelligenceCenter $220 Million (5 Years)Terminate Funding for the State Justice Institute $25.5 Million (5 Years)Consolidate and Reduce Funding for Federal AdvisoryCommittees $170 Million (5 Years)Suspend Federal Land Purchases $990 Million (5 Years)Terminate Safe Routes to Schools Program $915 Million (5 Years)Terminate New Federal Truck Parking Facilities ProgramThat Competes with Private Truck Stops $32.5 Million (5 Years)Terminate Federal Transportation Funding for “Nonmotorized”Transportation Projects $125 Million (5 Years)Eliminate Federal Transportation Funding for Landscaping,Museums, and Other Transportation “Enhancements” $4.1 Billion (5 Years)

Eliminate Unnecessary Federal Offices Such as theTreasurer of the United States IndeterminateTerminating Duplicative Education Programs $2.2 Billion (5 Years)Terminating Ineffective Federal Education Programs $2.8 Billion (5 Years)Terminate Non-Federal Priorities and Single RecipientPrograms $771 Million (5 Years)Terminate Funding for the DOD Innovative ReadinessTraining Program $100 Million (5 Years)REDUCING CORPORATE WELFARETerminate Funding To Promote the Sale of Brand NameFood Products and Alcoholic Beverages (MAP): $71.5 Million (5 Years)Eliminate Funding for Private Sector Technology Research(TIP) $349.5 Million (5 Years)Eliminate Double Payments for Indirect Medical Education $5.2 Billion (5 Years)REFORM FEDERAL PERSONNEL POLICIES TOREFLECT PRIVATE SECTOR PRACTICESUpdate the Formula for Federal Pensions to Reflect PrivateSector Practices $1.2 Billion (5 Years)Eliminate Full-time Union Representatives From FederalPayroll $60 Million (5 Years)Eliminate Retirement Payments for Federal Workers WhoRetire Before Age 62Indeterminate, butPotentially $1.3 Billion (5Years)OTHER COMMON SENSE REFORMSEliminate Wealthier Communities from the CommunityDevelopment Block Grant Program $1.7 Billion (5 Years)Require Food Stamp Beneficiaries to Meet Food StampEligibility Requirements $1.7 Billion (5 Years)Require States to Provide a Meaningful Energy AssistancePayment Before a Food Stamp Recipient Would be Entitledto a Standard Utility Allowance IndeterminateRequire Federal Agencies to Purchase Lowest CostVehicles IndeterminateDISPOSE OF EXCESS FEDERAL PROPERTY ANDCOLLECTING UNPAID DEBTSUpdate BLM Land Sale Authority and Direct a Portion ofProceeds to Deficit Reduction $173 Million (5 Years)

 

Reagan caused many of today's problems

Submitted by superdestroyer on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 06:52.

While Republicans claim to want a return to Reagan everyone should remember that Reagan ran up massive deficits, was unable to cut domestic spending, opened the borders to millions o illegal aliens, and basically created the conditions that have put the Democrats into power.

Reagan carried California both times he ran for President.  Today, Reagan would have zero chance of being elected governor of California and the Republicans do not even bother to mount an effort in California.

Reagan created the conditions that allowed Republicans to become big government, pork barreling, "compassionate conservatives" who are unable to lead, govern, or even learn about the issues.

However, the problem with Salam is he is proposing the Democratic-lite big government, big spending, nanny state that has been a failure through two different Bush Admnistraitons.

Read A Little History

Submitted by G. A. Harrison on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 09:58.

In 1966 they claimed that Reagan could never be elected Governor.  As for those massive deficits, they were primarily due to a defense build-up that helped to end the Cold War.  There's a big difference between defense and a "Bridge to Nowhere" or millions for ACORN.

Ronald Reagan was compassionate and he was a conservative.  Fortunately, he was not a compassionate conservative.

yes, Acorn never took us to the brink of nuclear armageddon

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:07.

Reagan GAMBLED and he WON. But I won't stand for you forgetting the risks he took, as they were not mere trifles.

Reagan inherited deficit, didnt make it worse

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:14.

"While Republicans claim to want a return to Reagan everyone should remember that Reagan ran up massive deficits"

FALSE. When Reagan entered office, the deficits were near 3% of GDP. When Reagan left office, they were the same, about 3% of GDP. Everyone should remember that the economy grew by one-third during Reagan's time in office, and that tax revenues in 1988 were much higher than in 1981, and so consequently the only reason for the deficit in 1988 was that Government spending was not as restrained as it should have been.

The worst that could be said is that Reagan had Democrat Speaker Tip ONeill to contend with, and could never cut the Government spending as much as he'd wish. The Democrats are the ones who ran the House and set the budget spending.

Today, Reagan would have zero chance of being elected governor of California and the Republicans do not even bother to mount an effort in California.

LOL  ... These days, it would be UNTHINKABLE for a bad actor from Hollywood to run as a Republican and win the Governorship in California. .... oh .... wait a sec ...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31173083

Learning from experience

Submitted by lgm on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 08:52.

SuperD is right.  Part of the reason Reagan retoric doesn't work anymore is that it has been tried and failed -- both under Reagan himself and under Bush, Jr. 

The Laffer curve is a joke -- massive unfunded tax cuts do not lead to budget surplusses. 

Americans do not want big business "streamlining" environmental protections. 

The religious right agenda is not for mainstream America. 

Hasty military adventures have consequences (Beirut, Iraq). 

Massive financial deregulation leads to instability (S&L, meltdown). 

 

I'm old enough

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:14.

To remember Reagan of governor of California.  I am anything but a fan of the man who claimed to be a conservative, but in fact was only that in selected areas.  Fiscally, he was the opposite end of the spectrum, running our debt to a new record, and raising taxes in all but one year of his administration..

He told Californians, "Taxes should hurt," although it turned out that his clever accountants had kept him from having to pay any on an income several times the state average.  Could any Republican today get away with that line?

I remember Iran/Contra, and that disgrace to a Marine uniform and waste of a Naval Academy education Oliver North telling Congress about all the illegal acts he had done.  He got off the hook for his conviction on the grounds that since everyone in America knew of his crimes, he couldn't get a fair trial. 

I remember that after strenuously denying that he had traded arms for hostages with our sworn enemies, Reagan admitted that he had done exactly that.  I remember all the convictions of members of the Reagan administration, still the record for the most of any president.

When the Soviet Union collapsed from its own internal corruption, a collapse which had been predicted and was already in progress before Reagan took office, Reagan somewhow got the credit, because he had said, "Tear down this wall."

Ollie North did say one thing that future presidents ignored, when he said that Osama bin Laden was the most dangerous man on earth.  Pity Mr. Bush wasn't listening.

I guess I lost my rose-colored glasses somewhere.

 

 

For the record

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 11:23.

Ollie North said Abu Nidal was the most dangerous person, not OBL. In fact, if you knew your history, you would know that in 1987 OBL was more of an ally to the U.S. as a "Freedom Fighter" in Afghanistan.

One must wonder about the rest of your "facts".

Disappointed

Submitted by G. A. Harrison on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:14.

As a long time fan, I'm quite disappointed at this myopic view of both Reagan and the conservative movement.  While not as extreme as Igm (and certainly more articulate) you seem to be walking down the same path.

Reagan was not responsible for the S&L fiasco (that legislation was cut during the Carter years) any more than GW Bush was responsible for the meltdown (and I never voted for the guy).  That supposed joke - the Laffer curve - has been proven right time and again.

The basic problem is one that you overlooked.  The GOP, not Reagan, has latched on to ONE idea - tax cuts - and seem to believe that it is the Holy Grail.  You are smart enough to know that there are NO silver bullets in politics.  It is only the media (and other fools) who seem to believe so.

Sure, there are some Republicans who believe that any tax rate above 0% is too high.  These are often the same ones who refuse to support meaningful spending cuts.  That does not mean that Reagan's ideas were any less important nor any less relevant to today.

The core philosophy is just as relevant today as it was in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.  The specific ideas as to how to implement that philosophy have and will change over time.  Free markets, ordered liberty, and enduring institutions are still important.

You are correct - The core philosophy is just as relevant today

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:32.

The real Reagan myth is the myth that "its all about tax cuts". Hardly. The man talked about MANY issues and in fact tax cuts were a small part of his overall agenda and just one component of what makes a "Reagan Republican".

Romney in 2008 was most explicit about the '3 legged stool' formula from Reagan - traditional & family values; national security and strong defence; and less-Government/more-individual-freedom including lower tax burdens. This is not just a 1980s-era formula, but a policy prescription and a coalition-building political foundation. THAT's why the Liberals want to bury Reagan, because THEN they can divide and conquer the center-right coalition.

Dont worry about the trolls and the conservative victims of DC/Stockholm snydrome, who feel they need to get intellectual street cred by bashing others on the right.

Here on NextRight, its mostly libs and  trolls doing the Reagan-bashing.

Reagan wasnt perfect, but he DID manage to be the best President in our lifetimes.

That supposed joke - the Laffer curve - has been proven right time and again.

Absolutely, and not just in the US, but around the world. Country after country that cut tax rates has seen economic booms follow. Key example is "celtic tiger" Ireland, that boomed after CENTURIES OF ECONOMIC BACKWARDNESS, in just hte last 20 years they managed to become richer than European counterparts, on the back of a low tax rate regimen.

"Sure, there are some Republicans who believe that any tax rate above 0% is too high.  These are often the same ones who refuse to support meaningful spending cuts."

Really? That seems a strawman to me. Who are these mythical creatures? name names. (And not the dearly departed Jack Kemp, who was a 1980s era pol anyway). I have yet to meet any such creature. Honest tax cutters know we need smaller govt and less spending too.

This is the KEY point -

The core philosophy is just as relevant today as it was in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.  The specific ideas as to how to implement that philosophy have and will change over time.  Free markets, ordered liberty, and enduring institutions are still important.

Political issues change and how to win majorities too .. but what endures are the basic ideas of marrying individual responsibility, family values, individual freedom/liberty, opposition to socialism/collectivist schemes, and protection of community and nation's security into a coherent consensus for the society.

Thanks

Submitted by G. A. Harrison on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 11:05.

You are partially correct about the 0% rate thing being a bit of a straw man, but not totally.  Perhaps I went a bit overboard, but there is no question that too many pols have looked at tax cuts as a silver bullet.

I can, however, produce a book of names of (current and former) elected officials who want to talk tax cuts but will not discuss meaninful spending cuts.  The first one that comes to mind is Don Young.  I remember a big broo-ha-ha over ATR giving Young some award.  Norquist explained that it was about taxes and not about Young's fiscal actions.  That was fair enough, coming from ATR.

I am curious about your seeming love for Romney.  There is no question that his rhetoric is top rate.  My concern has been that his past actions in no way mirror that rhetoric.  I'm not picking a fight, I'm simply curious and would appreciate any additional input.

 Absolutely, and not just in

Submitted by In between on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 15:47.

 Absolutely, and not just in the US, but around the world. Country after country that cut tax rates has seen economic booms follow. Key example is "celtic tiger" Ireland, that boomed after CENTURIES OF ECONOMIC BACKWARDNESS, in just hte last 20 years they managed to become richer than European counterparts, on the back of a low tax rate regimen.

You are right on the growth rate of Ireland, until they got hit with the financial crisis.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=IEP

However, if you look at the jobless rate which has been going up for over a year, you have to wonder what is going on. So that tells me it is more than just tax cuts.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?Symbol=IEP

Also, this great Ireland economy did not prevent Dell from moving to Poland.

 

So what we have is many factors. It is more than just tax cuts, and this so called 3 legged stool, is probably more failed ideology.

As I have said many times before, you have to invest in your country, in your people, and in the infrastructure. As good as Reagan was, he along with other presidents neglected the infrastructure. They also did not see the effects of globalization on our industry and on the middle class. It was not as apparent under Reagan, but in recent years we have seen our manufacturing going overseas and we see more people without healthcare, without jobs, and also losing pensions. Add to that, cities and states are losing revenue. The cities and states cannot compete with third world labor. I guess if we really want to compete, then we should just pay people a dollar an hour and do away with any benefits. I think this is really the end result that those proponents of "free trade" will not talk about. Like always, they have no answers. In the end we have to lose our standard of living.

We have numerous problems, and you have to attack these problems and deal with them. And I see nothing the republicans, as of yet, doing anything about it. I know you fear a central government approach, however, we still need to train our people to deal with globalization, we still need to be energy independent, and we still have to take care of our infrastructure. 

These problems will not go away with ideology. You need a managerial approach. Something that has been lacking with all leaders democrat or republican. 

I believe in free markets, but you have to make them work for you. If you sit back and let things just "happen" as Bush did, then we will lose. I see scenarios of losing most of our blue collar jobs and also white collar jobs that will go to India. You can have all the tax cuts you want, but the widgets made can be made anywhere. And no one has given an answer to this. We still need answers and let us not hide behind family values and individual freedom. Let us have some pragmatic answers.

Just as bad as socialism can be, the far right with their ignorance and arrogance and failed ideology is just as bad. I am not convinced that the republicans are serious with anything. We have not seen if for 8 years and we have not seen it with Limbaugh or Hannity who ignored the deficits and debt. And excused the spending as a small part of GDP, while so many areas of our economy was under neglect. Add to that Cheney saying "deficits don't matter." 

I suppose if we didn't want socialism, then the republicans should have done a better job at managing things. As far as I care, Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Cheney, and others are stuck with their ideology and just bashing and hatred. The tax cuts was with borrowed money. So in short the last 8 years was a sham. No spending was cut and we went to war with more borrowed money. 

It is funny listening to Hannity. Just bash Obama and saying how this country is being destroyed. Yes, we saw the country being destroyed under Bush also, but nothing was said. 

I am still waiting for something new from the republicans, but as usual there is nothing new.

Insults make the man

Submitted by lgm on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 07:28.

G. A. Harrison said:

While not as extreme as Igm (and certainly more articulate) ....

Why throw in an insult?  Even if your feel that way, and even if it's true, it doesn't help the discussion.  You proceed to quote me again and again, which shows that my points were clear and succinct.

Reagan was not responsible for the S&L fiasco (that legislation was cut during the Carter years)

I was around during the Reagan years.  The S&L crisis was rising.  People were clamoring for him to do something, but he never did.  By the time Bush, Sr. became President, the cleanup cost had grown enormously. 

The Laffer curve was going to make tax cuts balance the budget.  Instead the budget deficit doubled.  Bush, Jr. also campaigned on balanced budgets through tax cuts.  Again that's not what happened.  It would be hard for the next guy to campaign on that.

Conservative's post makes Jon Henke's point

Submitted by skayne on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 20:18.

Conservative posts on this thread are making Jon Henke's point for him. You're clueless about his Reagan's record, and conveniently forget that he raised taxes several times.

But I know you'll have some conservative spin about his actual record. Better yet, you'll make things up like Freedoms Truth.

Nobody can tell the truth about Lord- I mean, President Reagan. If there's anybody who's held up as a messiah, it's Ronald Reagan by conservatives.

Reagan is not remembered for "soaring rhetoric"

Submitted by 4speed on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 21:21.

Reagan had Substance and details in his speeches. His policies had specific goals for the people, and over time the policies yielded specific results.
Compared to Obama, whose rhetoric soars into outer space with no specifics in his speeches you can hang you hat on. And any specifics later turn out to be lies.
Reagans "Tear down this Wall" had specifics....The Obama equivalent would be Generic soaring lies with the word "Dividing beliefs" substituted for "wall" and "tear" would be politically incorrect.
Sarah talks plain english, and she does NOT talk about creating Jobs, she goes to Exxon / Canada / Houston and really Creates jobs by engaging the Private sector instead of threatening the private Businesses or firing the CEO's and replacing them with Czars.
Forget Reagan the man, look at Reagan's Policies......very detailed specific policies for making Govt. SHRINK and Capitalism GROW .
It Worked.

Lost in the present and future

Submitted by cr on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 07:26.

The Republicans are fighting yesturday's wars. Look at the discussion here. Was Reagan a good president, is Obama like Carter? I worry about Obamas economics, but he and the dems are playing the game rather than crying about losing. Dems did that for a while after Bush won '00 and '04, but finally someone in that party . . . a few people actually . . . said, hell no! They though about policy, and used today's tools, today's paradigms to win.

1.  Give up social issue like gays and abortion as wedge issues. I have said this a number of times. They are political losers.

2. Embrace the media. Ever hear of "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar."  Conservative media (except for maybe Huckabee) is all vinegar. Look at Maddow or  . . . Huffington post. They mix humor, news and lifesytle. I'm not sure if they are always good journalism, but I personally can't stand running screeds everyday. That what conservative media is every day. Maybe it makes people 'feel' they're right, but it's an all carb diet.

3. Look at demographics. The population is more diverse and urban. Those are very powerful factors in shaping government services. The time has gone; even Ragean's sunny smile can't take your back to yesturday. The smarter people in the the Rep ranks are shouting to embrace the changing face of Amercia, but the 'base' isn't budging.

 

Nice Gould Reference

Submitted by Max Borders on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 09:11.

Are you saying Republicans decended from monkeys?

No

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 13:22.

But they do have common ancestors!  :)

As far as I care, Bush,

Submitted by rashoodollison (not verified) on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 01:16.

As far as I care, Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Cheney, and others are stuck with their ideology and just bashing and hatred. The tax cuts was with borrowed money. So in short the last 8 years was a sham. No spending was cut and we went to war with more borrowed money. Life Experience Degrees