From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:19:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: anasazi.1992Aug19.161956.22907
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

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.

>|>        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
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.

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.

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.  

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.  

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.

>Milton Friedman's solution to everything is "the free market". He even tries to
>claim that whaling should be entirely unreguated since "the free market" will
>provide the necessary checks and balances, perhaps Friedman has not heard of the
>dodo? Senility makes people forget such facts.
>
True enough, but comments about senility are really quite libelous and 
unworthy of someone of your caliber.


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best