It would likely have been just as large as it was, if not larger.
Did Ronald Reagan actually ever propose anything that would have made government smaller? Hell, he never once suggested the elimination of the Department of Education, a promise he ran on.
No, the only way to "shrink" government is to starve it, which Reagan did, and Bush is doing, with tax cuts.
One is forced to take solace in the thought that government would not be as large as it would have been, had there been no tax cutting.
Did Ronald Reagan actually ever propose anything that would have made government smaller? Hell, he never once suggested the elimination of the Department of Education, a promise he ran on.
No, the only way to "shrink" government is to starve it, which Reagan did, and Bush is doing, with tax cuts.That was a promise that he shouldn't have broken, the Democrat House notwithstanding.
However, where did Reagan advocate the expansion of government through brand new entitlements? What makes you think he would have done so with an all GOP legislature?
BTW, if you seriously believe that the government could have grown larger under the all-Republican scenario I proposed, that's actually an argument for divided government. This would indicate that the Bush expansion we're currently experiencing is a systemic problem. This would be an argument against voting for a straight Republican ticket.
If I'm for smaller government and I accept the logical consequences of your position, and since it appears the GOP will hold Congress in 2004, would you suggest that I should consider voting for a Democrat Presidential candidate?
I'm all for tax cuts, but they stand a better chance of shrinking government if Bush and the Republicans aren't simultaneously advancing irresponsible spending sprees on new entitlements, just to keep up with AlGore and the Democrats.