At Disneyland, only one person, a woman working one of the rides, took note of my Ronald Reagan t-shirt. (Well, at least she was the only one who acknowledged to me that she had taken note of it.) She made an approving comment about the great man I chose to honor on this day.
I asked if she had backed the guy who lost the chance to take office today. No, “we needed a change,” she said, but shared my warm feelings for the Gipper.
I found it hard to believe that someone who supported a man who faced a financial crisis by holding the line on federal spending could back a candidate who favors a vast increase in such spending, but there it was.
Yet, another sign that in a relatively ideology-free election, our new president had the right campaign slogan. People wanted change. Let’s hope he delivers the right kind of change.
Reagan… federal spending… held the line? DELUSIONAL! Almost pathological.
I admire Reagan for much of what he did, but no one can honestly accuse him of excercising fiscal restraint.
Joey, just look at the rates of increase in federal domestic spending in the 1980s and compare them to the previous (and current) decade. Granted, he didn’t do a good enough job of cutting federal spending, but he limited the increases and he had to contend with a spendthrift Democratic House for all eight years of his Administration.
Joey, a little civics lesson seems in order. The president does not write the budgets, congress does. Presidents propose budgets, but congress writes them. Even a congress of the same party will make drastic changes, when congress is controlled by the other party, a budget proposal amounts to little more than wasted paper. But in the end all a president can do is sign or veto a budget, and congress can override him. Democrats have always spent more than Republicans and even when Republicans spend too much, as they did until 06, Democrats were criticizing them for not spending enough.
Reagan used his veto pen frequently and held spending back as much as he could.
Well, it works on several levels.
– First, most people don’t think about politics or pay much attention to policy, until it’s too late. They only go with their “impressions”. And Obama ran (falsely and deceptively) as a prudent centrist. When inflation is running at 20% a year (as it will be around, oh, 2012 or 2016), people will have a different impression, one working against all Democrats.
– Second, people want the world to be a beautiful place (I mean, think about where you were!) and Bush was so successful at protecting America after 9-11, he became a victim of his success. People saw his administration involved in fighting and some figured they could “change the channel” on it by voting in the other party. They’re wrong – that is, the Islamists’ Long War on us will *not* go away any time soon – but obviously some don’t know it.
– Third, again because Bush was so successful in protecting America after 9-11, people moved on to new concerns. In particular, with Obama in 2008, some figured “Here’s a chance to put that whole race thing to rest”. That’s one blessing that will come out of Obama’s administration. America has now had a mixed-race President. No one can claim it is systematically racist anymore. Some will still try, but as time passes, they will look more and more like idiots.
– Also, there was a financial crisis. People figured the Republicans have done poorly enough that the other guys can’t be that bad. Which brings me to my final point:
– Bush has destroyed the Republican brand on economic issues. Because of and under Bush, the GOP no longer stands for fiscal conservatism, or even for capitalism. That is a major failing. The GOP deserves its time in the woodshed over that. Its task now is to clean house and get its act together.
Joey – Learn something about the Presidents’ spending records, or you only make yourself look dumb. I have a link for you:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/09/27/presidential-spending/