From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:46:08 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>
>>|>        Does this mean that you're disappointed in Bush?
>>|>
>>|>        [Laughs.]  Disappointed is putting it very mildly.  I believe the
>>|>Bush
>>|>presidency has been very close to a disaster.
>>
>>Well he's right there.

>Conservatives and liberals agree!  However, we agree that it was a domestic
>failure for very different reasons.  I would say that Bush has proved that
>you can't be the President and not have either an agenda or an ideology
>that is somewhat confrontational.  This "no more bickering" statement he
>made about the Legislature vs the Executive during his upcomming term (then)
>flew in the face of the reason why many voted him in - to fight Congress.

wasn't he "voted in", to keep willie horton in jail?  and dukakas from 
riding around in tanks?  and to wave the flag real hard?

>>|>        Reagan when he came into office had four basic points: one, reduce
>>|>marginal taxes; two, reduce regulation; three, restrain government spending;
>>|>four, have a stable and noninfaltionary monetary policy.  And while he did
>>|>not
>>|>achieve them to the extent to which I would have liked, he did achieve a
>>|>great
>>|>many of them.
>>
>>Running up the worlds largest budget deficit in the process. Derregulation
>>caused the S&L disaster. 

>The S&L crisis could have been mitigated by regulation.  However, the
>tax act of (86 or 87, someone straighten me out) which devaluated 
>real estate was the cause.  Deregulation may only have changed the
not.  the massive overbuilding of commercial real-estate, which
S&Ls were allowed to finance for the first time was.  there was lots
of really *stupid* investments made and backed by S&Ls.  tax changes
didn't cause losses, >50% vacancy rates did.

>relative magnitude but the Democrats envy of either success or wealth
>or who knows what ultimately caused them to screw around with the tax
>codes again.  Why can't these tax codes be left alone?  As soon as 
>someone starts adjusting and becomming successful under the rules, the
>democrats go and penalize them.

do you mean the lowering of tax rates in 86 was a bad thing?  

>Of the deficit I will point out (again) that the Congress has set up an
>impossible situation and then blamed the Executive for the inevitable
>results.  Two points need to be made:  

>First, that the Congress has passed legislation that _by law_ mandates
>spending thus the Executive cannot disobey the law and the monies are spent.
>This money is off limits and it amounts to a staggering 72% percent of the 
>annual budget (my bro is an analyst at the GAO, his figures).  What is left
>is discretionary and from that they expect to balance the budget.  The problem
>is not that we do not take in enough money, it is that we spend too much.

change the law.

>Second, that the Congress has defined the appropriations bill in such a
>way as to make it a take it or leave it proposition.  The Omnibus spending
>bill containing all significant expenditures is sent to the Executive where
>he can either sign it (and inevitably extend the deficit) or veto it (and
>shut down the government).  This, it can be argued, is blackmail and leaves
>the Executive no real option other than to sign it.  Shutting down the 
>government is _not_ acceptable for a myriad of moral reasons.  

shut it down.

>You may be interested to note that Madison, during the Constitutional 
>Convention, was very concerned that the legislature would somehow try to
>get around the Veto.  These Founders were well acquainted with the nature
>of republican governments and the resultant accumulation of power in 
>the legislature.  Therefore, I conclude that the prophetic fears of
>Madison have come true today.  The legislature has vitiated the Veto and
>thus the system is broken (when compared to the checks/balances system
>of the Founders).  Bills are not subject to review on an individual basis
>and there are now many bad bills which pass.  

shut it down!

>Take an unbiased view of the current circumstances of the Federal Government
>and honestly ask yourself if the system where bills are lumped together 
>into one is proper by original intent of the Founders or by functional
>behavior.  The deficit proves, to me, that the Congress has indeed gotten
>around the Veto and that power has accumulated, unchecked, in that body.

no, gb is a wuss and rr had a weak cabinet.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40605 talk.abortion:32437 alt.politics.bush:2136