From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: So how about that deficit (was Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.033225.14549@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>In article <7709@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>All this talk of Clinton and Congress working together frightens me no end. It
>>means there will be no brake at all on a Congress run amok. We will see an
>>orgy of taxing and spending the likes of which have not occurred since the
>>days of the Great Society...and we all know what a bust that was.
>
>Okay, I've got some general questions here. Like many people, I've
>been accepting the contention that 'Democrats spend more than
>Republicans' for some years now, but after looking at actual numbers I
>can't really say I'm convinced. 

Have you seen the National Taxpayer Union ratings on Congresspersons.
They make it quite clear that the spending behavior of Democrats is
far more spendthrift than Republicans. Of the top 100 spenders in
the House for 91-92, 96 were Democrats. 

>As far as I can tell, more than 3/4 of the existing $4.1 Trillion
>(i.e. 10^12, or a MegaMegaBuck :-) existing federal deficit was
>incurred during the last 12 years of American history, the "Reagan/Bush"
>years.

This is msileading. In terms of debt as a ratio of GNP, it went from 33%
to about 55% under Reagan, 
>
>Now, I know the president doesn't control federal spending. And I'll
>accept that the president might approve certain spending provisions
>that he didn't agree with just to help the process of consensus along
>a bit. However, the president does have to sign all budgets into law,
>and frankly I just can't see how someone can rationally divorce the $3
>x10^2 incurred federal deficit of the last 12 years from the
>Reagan/Bush presidency. 

>
>From my limited observation (I was 10 when Reagan was elected :),
>Reagan was more than happy to sign all of those huge spending
>increases into law, without the slightest hesitation. He got away with

Um, he wasn't happy. You see, he made some budget cutting proposals
which were by and large ignored. There were several agencies he wanted to
stop funding, but Congress wouldn't let him.  Also, Reagan decided
that a strong Defense was necessary to the country. Congress knew that,
and also knew that many other things were dear to him. They tied
these things together in their "omnibus" spending packages, and
so Reagan had to sign on them if he wanted to keep parts of his program
intact.

>it because the economy was in fairly good shape, and the bulk of the
>opinion-makers in the country (i.e. the middle and upper classes) were
>making $$$.

Partly true.  People forget how messed up the economy was when Reagan
took the helm. They also ignore the fact that at the end of Reagan's term,
the deficit was, as a percentage of GNP, no higher than at the beginning.
The debt was higher, but was still managable.

>So, I ask the diehard Republican supporters here: When you went to the
>polls, how did you rationalize this behaviour?

How can we rationailize the behavior of those who actually passed these
ominbus budgets - the Congress?  At least with the President, the only
way to stop these bills is to veto them and shut down the entire
Government. Unfortunately, this was never tried on a sustained basis.


>How can Reagan and Bush
>be held without responsibility in this matter (or, with minimal
>responsibility)?

Some responsibility, yes.  Look at the overall record.
Reagan had an overall economic record that was
quite successful. Reagan *did* hold the line on spending, in that
the growth of spending was lower. His tax cuts *did* spur the economy,
which grew 30% in 7 years. There have been few periods during this
century where we made so much economic progress.

Bush's record on spending, the deficit, and economy is flawed.
He let spending get out of control, and agreed to too much of the
Democratic Congress' tax-and-spend plans; and of course the
economy, since the 1990 tax increase and invasion of Kuwait, has been
in recession and then growing "anemically". 

>In what way would re-election of G. Bush have
>addressed the deficit issue?

Bush had spending cap proposals which, unfortunately, the Democrats
have ignored. Admittedly, this would have only gone so far.
In what way will B. Clinton address the deficit issue? That's the
real question.  The Democrats will continue to ignore the deficit
unless the people wake them up to the problem somehow.

Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59902 alt.rush-limbaugh:9580 alt.politics.elections:23658