Bush vs. the Deficit Hawks

Opinion Journal ^ | 02/10/04 | BRENDAN MINITER

[Pokey78]

During the Reagan years, conservatives were willing to live with big spending. What's changed?

Unlike most families, the federal government can perpetually spend more than it takes in and still remain fiscally sound. That's because unlike us mortals, Uncle Sam isn't going to retire. His income isn't going to top off in middle age and slip in his golden years. The occasional but short-lived downturn notwithstanding, it will continue to grow with the economy, forever.

[Ol' Sparky]

The difference is Reagan -- whose budgets in seven of this eight years in office were lower than Congress's -- was dealing with a Democratic congress. Bush has used the bully pulpit to force and Republican-controlled Congress to increase spending at the fastest rate for his first three years since the 1960s.

[Texas Eagle]

So why is Mr. Reagan a hero, while President Bush is taking so many hits even from the right for running up the government's tab?

Because, unlike President Bush, President Reagan vetoed many spending bills that came to his desk. So many that the media created a word for it. They called it "gridlock".

Of course Reagan was dealing with a RAT Congress so it's kind of hard to tell make a direct comparison since we don't know what he would've done had a Republican Congress sent him such ludicrously expensive spending bills.

[staytrue]

Unlike most families, the federal government can perpetually spend more than it takes in and still remain fiscally sound. That's because unlike us mortals, Uncle Sam isn't going to retire. His income isn't going to top off in middle age and slip in his golden years. The occasional but short-lived downturn notwithstanding, it will continue to grow with the economy, forever.

This is completely wrong.

The economy grows from increased productivity and increased population. That is when the population doubles, the economy is twice as large, and you can double your debt. Since 1980, we have added a lot of people. I doubt this will recur.

[KantianBurke]

"the Republican Party no longer stands for smaller government. Today the party is morphing into what it once sought to unseat--big-spending politicians, interested only in holding onto power."

[MissAmericanPie]

Being a Republican he might have spent those billions to promote conservatism and shrink government, instead we have the Education Bill, the Farm Bill, the PBS funding, billions down the African rat hole for aids, when sending them a note telling them to keep their pants zipped would have just as much effect..zero, thirty four billion of SS funds to Mexico, the Medicare mess, and so on.