From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:48:21 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>>[Re: Reagan and Thatcher and spending cuts ...]
>>>>they threw up their hands halfway through their first terms.
>>>
>>>total, unadulterated bull. Reagan's deficits were horrendous all
>>>through his terms.
>>
>>That's what I meant.  Slow down and read more carefully next time.
>
>bull that's what you meant. slow down and *think* more carefully next time.
>
>you put Reagan and Thatcher in the same class as "fiscal
>conservatives". Thatcher was. Reagan was not. Reagan never *was*. 

However, numerous guests from the Republican and Libertarian side
on CNN Crossfire persist in that notion, and that is the general
impression that has been left on people.  John C. Whitehead, who
is now a senior partner at Goldman Sachs, former undersecretary
in the Reagan State Dept. and the chairman of the foundation that
runs the private grad dormitory that I live in has expressed that
viewpoint in his speeches and directly to me over drinks.

>you stated that they threw up their hands "halfway" through their
>first terms. "throwing up one's hands" implies trying something and
>being frustrated. Reagan never tried to be a fiscal conservative.  

I cited David Stockman's book in our last go-round; the Reaganites
came in with machetes and axes sharpened, but Dave's surveys showed
that none of them were willing to attack sacred cows dear to them
thus leaving a consensus of near-zero.

>he increased the deficit 62% his first year in power, and another 62%
>*over that* the next year. that is not fiscally conservative by any
>stretch of the imagination. 

Reagan came in as a fiscal conservative and talked well enough that
people like John C. Whitehead, senior partners from Shearman Sterling
(a Wall Street law firm), and many others believed it.  The record
shows otherwise.  As I said, he threw up his hands ...

>Thatcher's record is quite a different story.

She faced down Arthur Scargill and the coal miners in a much better
and nobler fashion than Reagan dealt with the air controllers.  Fine.
But a regular reading of The Economist (the only newsmagazine worth
bothering with besides Macleans, which is merely default for news on
Canada) will show that Mags had to deal with much entrenchment, too.
Over a decade, there was little reform to the National Health Service
while even the Italians are now gutsy enough to transition theirs to
an insurance system like Canada, France and Germany which enshrines
private doctor choice (the single budget allotment to private practice
that was done at the *end* of Thatcher's time isn't any different from
the "keep the change" allotments that HMO's assign to their doctors 
... 'cos NHS and HMO's operate under the same practices with the same
resulting grief cited by their patients (NYT, 12/26)).

>as i challenged you in the previous post, provide some numbers.

The numbers, such as you cited and other references are regularly
cited in Talk.politics.misc ... if you have the time, hang out there.
Or, get me a job that'll justify my reading beyond the Times Business
and the Wall Street Journal ... (10 days prepaid in Bermuda with the
reading list of your choice would be fine, too.)  I have better things
to do than scan tables of the public record and paste them up on USENET
... but you're welcome to; I haven't seen any numbers from you, either.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics