Posted by
Sanity 102 on Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:19:15 PM
Reagan did NOT, read my lips (pun intended) stop government spending either. In fact he left the first Bush a huge deficit. True, the main reason behind all the grand spending was for all those cool weaponry that helped our military kick butt during the first Gulf war. However, the fact is he SPENT and not during a time of war.
Reagan also did NOT cut pork spending precisely because there were so many strings attached to bills—deals he had to make. Why do you think he wanted line veto powers? Yet, this fact doesn’t seem to bother those who want Bush tarred and feathered for not being able to accomplish the exact same goal; an accomplishment tantamount to a revolution in American politics.
Businessmen and Labor Unions are not idealists…they remain in business and in power by quid quo pro. They will support politicians who give them something in return. People send senators and representatives to Congress and keep reelecting those who have enough seniority to sit on committees precisely because they want “their share” of the government pot. To expect politicians to cut the pork spending is like asking a salesman to try to sell something without “sweetening” the sale with freebies.
Whenever someone talks about this slim majority of Republicans doing away with pork spending…I want to ask what planet that person lives on…more, how old is he and how did he get to be that old without realizing that life is a bunch of deals and “principles” are something only winners can afford to stand on.
Yes, Reagan did indeed use his veto pen. But that was because he didn’t have a ghost of a chance (without a majority Congress) of getting important funding and bills through, so why not anger the Democrats? It was tough rhetoric that risked nothing and gave him brownie points with the hard right.
Bush, on the other hand, has a slight majority and as long as the GOP holds that majority, it IS possible to actually get some Conservative agenda passed. To anger the other side of the aisle just to appease the Reaganites, Buchananites, Libertarians who deny being Republicans anyway would be down right stupid.
I fail to comprehend why Reaganites believe that their icon would NOT put aside the Conservative agenda to team up with Democrats in the fight against terrorists madmen when this man was very willing to put aside our American interest to team up with our Soviet counterparts in defending the earth against possible space invaders.
Did Reagan bust the unions? Again, yes and no. He went up against a little known group of air traffic controllers with a public that is dependant upon air travel backing him up. But he never took on the big guys nor did he bust unions in California when he was governor. Reagan, as an ex-union leader owed much of his political career to them, a fact Hillary pointed out when she told a teachers group in July of 2004…”Don’t you wish Ronald Reagan was still around?”
Did Reagan cut social spending? Yes, but in less than 2 years in office, he also rescinded on his tax cuts. Before one complains about the drugs for senior citizens put forth by Bush as being “unReagan like”, let them also remember that Bush’s refusal to rescind his tax cuts was ALSO unReagan like.
Political reality was that all too many people remembered Reagan’s uncompassionate handling of the poor—and Democrats were using the conservative dismissal of the blight of poor, fixed income grandma to attack the GOP. Bush HAD to take that off the table. Like buying weapons for our fight against the terrorists…he had to “spend” in order to focus the nation on the important issues: war and a strong economy.