Posted on 08/24/2011 6:28:40 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What would the Club for Growth say about Ronald Reagan? We know what they think about Rick Perry since they have produced new Presidential White Papers on him. Their opinion: eh, not bad, but not great.
Now, keep in mind, the Club for Growth is hard to please. We are talking about Rick Perry, the governor of Texas. That is Texas, arguably one of the most conservative and freest of the market states in the country. The very place that George W. Bush helped to create a pro-business atmosphere. All he had to do was clock in and clock out and he gets an A, right?
What I find fascinating when I read the Club for Growth White Papers is that generally only politicians who aren’t governors get great scores. The Club for Growth loves Michele Bachmann. That’s mainly because she has the freedom to toe the ideological line. She has never been forced to balance a budget in a politically diverse environment. So if you are a governor, and especially a governor from a non-ideologically pure state, then prepare to get your hat handed to you by the Club for Growth.
With that being said, I thought it would be interested to imagine the White Papers for conservative icon Ronald Reagan. It might go as follows:
While Ronald Reagan showed promised early on in his presidency by passing one of the largest tax decreases in history, he spent the rest of his presidency signing into law 11 different tax increases. These tax hikes were enacted with the goal of paying for government-run health insurance, such as Medicare. While the eleven tax hikes did not fully make up for that initial tax cut, we find Reagan’s vulnerability to compromise somewhat alarming. True conservatives never increase taxes, much less 11 times.
In Reagan’s eight years, the United States also went from being the world’s largest international creditor to being the world’s largest debtor. In 1981, the deficit was $74 billion and the national debt was $930 billion. Within two years (because of the 1981 tax cut), the deficit was $208 billion. By the end of Reagan’s presidency, the Gipper had allowed the national debt to spiral to $2.6 trillion. We at the Club for Growth find Reagan’s utter disregard for our nation’s finances troubling. What America needs is someone who reduces government, not increases it.
Again, while Reagan entered office with the kind of government-reducing rhetoric that the Club for Growth admires, he largely failed to follow through on his commitments. We find Reagan’s creation of the Department of Veteran Affairs troublesome. Indeed, Reagan ended his presidency with 60,000 more federal employees in the workforce. In 1983, Reagan agreed to $165 billion in government bailout money for the unconstitutional Social Security. Now is the not the time when the United States should bail out its government run programs. If Reagan’s goal was to reduce government, then he utterly failed. America needs somebody who will stick it to Washington, not a government-loving RINO like Ronald Reagan.
Of course, we are not even going to go into Reagan’s non budget-related indiscretions, such as his granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, his states’ rights crippling support of a federal minimum drinking age, and his 1981 “voluntary” export restraint on Japanese cars (the auto industry doesn’t need more bailouts). And then there is his breath-taking support of the Brady Bill, published on the pages of the ghastly New York Times. There is enough here alone to suggest that America would be better off without Reagan’s big government policies.
We think that Dick Cheney is wrong when when he stated that Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. America would be better off served by somebody like Michele Bachmann. She is ideologically pure.
Why are you even still a member here?
I think of that everyime the Republicans make a deal with the Democrats. Not only did they not cut spending as they promised, they went on a spending spree and then blamed the resulting deficit on Reagan. The Democrats are evil liars.
Yet another attempt at revisionist history - and, by a FReeper at that! Disgusting!!
Nice try guys — NO SALE. I knew Ronnie. Different time, different circumstances, and NOT the “tax increases” as are being pushed by the Dems and RINO’s.
Thanks for the article. I got to vote for Mr. Reagan as a youth of 18 (my first vote). As much Reagan worship that is shown here, it is nice to note that as a human, he wasn’t perfect in all aspects. Still love the man, but perfect he was not. Yes I know to take this article with a grain of salt (net tax cuts etc..), but it needs to be allowed to stand to show that even cult heros are not perfect in all aspects.
RE: Why are you even still a member here?
Mr. LewisLynn, is there any rule in FR that states that only articles that praise Ronald Reagan are allowed? If so, kindly show it to me...
FR is a Forum about CONSERVATISM, not blind hero worship.
The ideals of Conservatism are bigger than any individual and we ought to hold ANYONE accountable the policies they made are not conservative.
In other words, we should not BLINDLY worship someone as infallible and if mistakes were made, we ought to learn from them and make sure that they are NOT REPEATED.
Eternal Vigilance in the price of freedom.
He is an indiot if he thinks Reagan was a RINO.
He was stuck with a democrap congress- who promised him $3 decrease in spending for each dollar increase in taxes.
The spending cuts never happened
The liberals learned from this and that is why they promised Boner $10 in spending cuts for each dollar of tax increase (hell, why not 100?? -they are never going to do the spending cuts)
RE: His gig is relentlessly posting constant lefty talking point, contrarian items then claiming he’s just provoking discussion.
Mr. Carl LaFong, I have posted hundreds of articles since my membership here four years ago.
Yes, I post contrary articles to provoke discussion. Isn’t that the purpose of a forum? Should we only post articles that are flattering of the people we like and ignore those that are not?
Secondly, I take issue with your statement that I : “chimes in agreeing with the left leaning perspective of the article”. I challenge you to prove this statement by showing me where I agreed with any left leaning perspective.
Posting what a left leaner said does not mean that you agree with Him does it? or are you unable to even distinguish between the two?
Revenues 1980 = $517.1B
Revenues 1988 = $909.2B
Right now, any of the GOP candidates is far preferable to Barky - anyone talking about sitting this election out is a damn fool.
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.