Reason Magazine is a libertarian rag. Naturally they would come to the defense of Paul. Now whether the facts they cooked up here are accurate or not is a different matter.
But when you start from the left, anything can happen.
The president spends only what Congress allows.
Carter saved the money on the military, which Reagan had to rebuild.
Reagan campaigned as a budget slasher in 1976 ($90 billion budget cut). He outlined the cuts. Suffered dearly from political blowback, especially as the cutting SocSec mantra had even more currency then. Since then, he decided to work on the tax side of the equation.
First week in, hiring freeze.
Late in office he did allow the SS taxes to be increased, or it would have bankrupted. We had a healthy enough economy back then to pull it off.
Not a perfect man, but did very well with what he inherited.
‘On an annualized basis, then, Carter grew spending by 4.25 percent a year, while Reagan grew it by 2.75 percent’
So how is 2.75% greater than 4.25% — as the article alleges?!
The old saying is proven again: “There are liers, d*mn liars, and statisticians”.
What else does the Left p0wn you on, Rand?
“Rand Paul: Jimmy Carter was better on the budget than Ronald Reagan”
If Rand Paul prefers Carter to Reagan, he has no business running for president as a Republican.
Reagan also had a Cold War to win. That was his goal.
As opposed the incompetent “intellectual” Jimmy Carter was regarding foreign affairs. The man who watched Iran fall and the Soviet Union move into Afghanistan and the problems caused by that incompetence we are still dealing with today.
It will be the same when Captain Midnight departs the White House.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Budget_&_Economy.htm
Jimmy Carter on Budget & Economy
Failed to control inflation and unemployment
On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion.
With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.
Source: Grolier’s Encyclopedia, “The Presidency” Dec 25, 2000
Pushed alternative energy program to fight oil shortage
Carter faced a drastic erosion of the value of the US dollar and a persistent trade deficit, much of it a result of US dependence on foreign oil.
The president warned that Americans were wasting too much energy, that domestic supplies of oil and natural gas were running out, and that foreign supplies of petroleum were subject to embargoes by the producing nations, principally by members of OPEC.
In mid-1979, in the wake of widespread shortages of gasoline, Carter advanced a long-term program designed to solve the energy problem. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels. In what was probably his most significant domestic legislative accomplishment, he was able to get a significant portion of his energy program through Congress.
Source: Grolier’s Encyclopedia, “The Presidency” Dec 25, 2000
Jimmah was so great, let me tell you! Put on your sweater before spending
6 hours waiting to fill your tank on your way to the unemployment line.
Jimmah personified everything we should look for in a leader - passive, liked
to kiss the sandals of our enemies- just a real turn-down-your-thermostat sort of guy.
Not that I don’t enjoy rehashing the ‘70’s & ‘80’s - but is this worth writing about in 2014?
Dang....
Reducing revenue? Stockman, still an assclown.
Tax revenue went up sharply under Reagan
But Stockman said it went down. LOL!
Wow... let’s not talk about the total neglect Carter gave to the military while the Soviets were gathering strength. Kinda left Reagan with no choice but to increase outlays to the DOD.
Look like that chart only levels off when the Republicans have the house.
Look at the graph, and imagine connecting a straight line from the START of the KENNEDY administration to the END of the CLINTON administration. With minor bumps to either side, the slope of the graph for ALL the administrations in that interval is essentially the same. So, overall, spending increased at about the same rate for ALL these administrations in that time interval. In other words, there was little practical difference in the RATE of growth of the government (as measured by spending) from KENNEDY thru CLINTON.
Then, notice the marked RISE in the slope starting with the BUSH 2 administration, and continued rise thereafter...
Carter served one term: 17% increase
For two terms that would work out to a 34% increase.
Reagan had a 22% increase.
Reagan also had to work with a Democrat Controlled House and Senate.
Carter had a Democrat Controlled House and Senate. He could have cut spending if he wanted to, and could get his den of thieves to go along.
Reagan didn’t have that chance.
During Reagan revenues soared.
The Dems have a real problem coming to grips with that. He cut taxes. That’s something they can’t admit or it destroys their theory of governance.
Looks as if every president was more thrifty than his successor based on that bar chart.
Yeah, carter even turned off the lights on the Christmas Tree.
One thing they ALWAYS neglect to mention is:
WHAT Democrats spend on vs. WHAT Republicans spend on...
And, what our Founders INTENDED the government to spend on.
Makes a LOT of difference.
I see some jumping on the bait to defend Ronald Reagan against JIMMY CARTER? Good grief. Get a grip folks. It is not worth the time or energy. This BS article is helpful however as it does expose Rand Paul as someone with no analytical skills and who has no business being a Republican much less a president.
Reading some of this is chilling. Rand Paul... Daniels..., do either of these people understand who controls spending in Washington, D. C.? Do they understand the impact on spending if the Democrats control the House and Senate? Do they know who controlled the House and Senate in the Reagan years?
They talk about Reagan spending as if he had this great big check-book and spent his days and nights writing checks the nation couldn’t afford. Yep, “That mean old man Reagan. He was just the worst!”
This article is tripe.
Part of the reason the spending on Reagan was higher, was because Carter butchered the military during his term in office. Someone had to rebuild our forces and Reagan was stuck with the task.
Anyone remember that failed raid in Iran to rescue the hostages? That was Carter’s idea of a properly run military. Reagan knew better.
People that wish to dissect Reagan better put on their big boy pants and do more work. The guy was even better than he gets credit for.