Bush, The Failure

[otterinbham 0]

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/08/12/...-world-history/

Bush: The Biggest Taxer in World History

The Treasury Department reported Friday that federal revenues reached $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007. In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected. And yet it’s not enough to satisfy the voracious appetites of the spenders in Congress and the administration. Spending was $2.27 trillion for the same ten months.

It seems that the deficit problem in Washington is not a result of insufficient tax revenue but rather the inexorable growth of spending on everything from earmarks to entitlements to war.

To be sure, the U.S. economy is the largest national economy in history, and that’s the main reason for record tax levels. And tax revenues are not at their peak in terms of percentage of GDP–though they’re getting close. Earlier in the year OMB estimated that revenues as a percentage of GDP would reach 18.5 percent in 2007. But as of a month ago that figure had reached 18.8 percent, approaching the levels that typically produce popular demand for relief. But as spending interests become stronger and more widespread in Washington, popular demand for lower taxes faces more resistance. It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I just spent 1/2 of all Sunday arguing that Bush's tax cuts have yielded more revenue for the Fed than at any point of Clinton's term. And now this.

In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected.

I rest my case.

[TitanTiger 22,006]

What good does it do to collect more tax revenue if you still have to use the credit card to make ends meet?

[TexasTiger 15,476]

I just spent 1/2 of all Sunday arguing that Bush's tax cuts have yielded more revenue for the Fed than at any point of Clinton's term. And now this.

In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected.

I rest my case.

And, yet, which one submitted balanced budgets?

[AURaptor 1,137]

What good does it do to collect more tax revenue if you still have to use the credit card to make ends meet?

Key lesson learned.? No matter HOW much tax $$ Gov't raises, they'll always be a feigned need for MORE of OUR money. Even w/ out the war, mindless entitlements , waste and pork projects are destined to doom this country. The politicians, in ever more frantic desire to gain and consolidate power, will always be willing to 'give back' to those who keep electing them.

In the end, we must blame ourselves.

[otterinbham 0]

I just spent 1/2 of all Sunday arguing that Bush's tax cuts have yielded more revenue for the Fed than at any point of Clinton's term. And now this.

In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected.

I rest my case.

Well, you rested way too early. While you are right that lower tax rates have yielded more tax revenue, that doesn't do a bit of good if a Republican congress and a Republican president crank up the spending.

How many times do I have to say PRESCRIPTION ACT in this forum? $600 billion a year, and wholly unnecessary. In fact, it was $200 billion more than what the Democrats proposed.

What you can't seem to get is that Bush is a big government president. Rather than limit the scope of government, he increased it in every department. As a result, even with record collections, we are running a deficit.

The man failed utterly as leader of his party, defining the legislative agenda. He also failed to use the VETO stamp to check runaway spending.

[otterinbham 0]

Case in point...from the Financial Times.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc...00779fd2ac.html

Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

By Jeremy Grant in Washington

Published: August 14 2007 00:06 | Last updated: August 14 2007 00:06

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.

David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt.

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

“Sound familiar?” Mr Walker said. “In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.”

Mr Walker’s views carry weight because he is a non-partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office, often described as the investigative arm of the US Congress.

While most of its studies are commissioned by legislators, about 10 per cent – such as the one containing his latest warnings – are initiated by the comptroller general himself.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.

“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.

“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.

The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.

“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.

Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.

“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”

Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.

“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.

[CCTAU 3,831]

So I guess now when the dims raise taxes there will be a need for it? Or how come we don't see them saying that they know of a better way to spend the money? Bush at least raised revenue with tax cuts. Now if we can just keep those tax cuts and get some folks in congress who can come up with ways to reduce government, we might survive. But to put the dims in control is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. They are already talking more taxes. And for what? Seems with all this money, we just need to manage it better.

[TexasTiger 15,476]

If only Bush could play the fiddle.

Case in point...from the Financial Times.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc...00779fd2ac.html

Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

By Jeremy Grant in Washington

Published: August 14 2007 00:06 | Last updated: August 14 2007 00:06

The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.

David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt.

Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

“Sound familiar?” Mr Walker said. “In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.”

Mr Walker’s views carry weight because he is a non-partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office, often described as the investigative arm of the US Congress.

While most of its studies are commissioned by legislators, about 10 per cent – such as the one containing his latest warnings – are initiated by the comptroller general himself.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.

“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.

“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term.

The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.

“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.

Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.

“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”

Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.

“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.

[DKW 86 8,097]

I just spent 1/2 of all Sunday arguing that Bush's tax cuts have yielded more revenue for the Fed than at any point of Clinton's term. And now this.

In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected.

I rest my case.

And, yet, which one submitted balanced budgets?

The true CONSERVATIVE Congress he had to work with. Clinton campaigned in 1996 that they could not balance the budget under any circumstance before 2003. The Conservatives balanced the budget. Clinton just happened to be in office when it happened. Hope this helps.

[otterinbham 0]

So I guess now when the dims raise taxes there will be a need for it? Or how come we don't see them saying that they know of a better way to spend the money? Bush at least raised revenue with tax cuts. Now if we can just keep those tax cuts and get some folks in congress who can come up with ways to reduce government, we might survive. But to put the dims in control is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. They are already talking more taxes. And for what? Seems with all this money, we just need to manage it better.

A total cop-out and you know it.

Hey, I'll be first to say that lower tax rates actually resulted in higher revenues. I've written on that subject many times on this forum. But to sit here and uphold the Democrats as profligate spenders while letting the GOP slide is just homerism at its worst.

The administration had a Republican Congress, and did NOTHING to reduce governmental scope. Nothing. Did not lift a finger. And, as a consequence, squandered probably the best chance this nation has had to avoid the impending fiscal crisis.

[Tigermike 4,084]

So I guess now when the dims raise taxes there will be a need for it? Or how come we don't see them saying that they know of a better way to spend the money? Bush at least raised revenue with tax cuts. Now if we can just keep those tax cuts and get some folks in congress who can come up with ways to reduce government, we might survive. But to put the dims in control is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. They are already talking more taxes. And for what? Seems with all this money, we just need to manage it better.

A total cop-out and you know it.

Hey, I'll be first to say that lower tax rates actually resulted in higher revenues. I've written on that subject many times on this forum. But to sit here and uphold the Democrats as profligate spenders while letting the GOP slide is just homerism at its worst.

The administration had a Republican Congress, and did NOTHING to reduce governmental scope. Nothing. Did not lift a finger. And, as a consequence, squandered probably the best chance this nation has had to avoid the impending fiscal crisis.

Which did as much as anything to help the dims win the congress in the last election.

[AFTiger 282]

Remeber this rule of thumb no matter who is in office:

IF YOU SEND IT, THEY WILL SPEND IT.

[CCTAU 3,831]

So I guess now when the dims raise taxes there will be a need for it? Or how come we don't see them saying that they know of a better way to spend the money? Bush at least raised revenue with tax cuts. Now if we can just keep those tax cuts and get some folks in congress who can come up with ways to reduce government, we might survive. But to put the dims in control is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum. They are already talking more taxes. And for what? Seems with all this money, we just need to manage it better.

A total cop-out and you know it.

Hey, I'll be first to say that lower tax rates actually resulted in higher revenues. I've written on that subject many times on this forum. But to sit here and uphold the Democrats as profligate spenders while letting the GOP slide is just homerism at its worst.

The administration had a Republican Congress, and did NOTHING to reduce governmental scope. Nothing. Did not lift a finger. And, as a consequence, squandered probably the best chance this nation has had to avoid the impending fiscal crisis.

I didn't let the republicans off. I said we need to get SOME folks (dims or repubs) who can come up with ways to reduce govt. At least the repubs lied to us and told us they were small govt. WE KNOW the dims aren't. So where does that leave us? I was mostly speaking in the future. We already know what the last congress did not accomplish. Until congress sees the light, we will continue to pay for services not rendered. But at least the repubs did not raise our taxes. Now that HAS to be a good thing. If we can get the dims to take it one step farther and cut spending, then we could be in good shape....

But like that will ever happen. You guys did hear about the new KY lube out didn't you? Get ready now.

[Justin5 20]

In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected.

I should add that it has been proven time and time again that even in times of recession, the revenue from tax collection always rises. It is NO surprise that it collected the most this year, its the most collected EVERY year. Using that as a point would be as useful using population growth as a proof of the success of the economy. There is no direct correlation.

[AUloggerhead 2,863]

The true CONSERVATIVE Congress he had to work with. Clinton campaigned in 1996 that they could not balance the budget under any circumstance before 2003. The Conservatives balanced the budget. Clinton just happened to be in office when it happened. Hope this helps.

Great point, David. Taxing & spending is a constitutionally granted power of the Legislative branch. I wish more people would understand this whenever they talk about budgets (deficits or surpluses) under certain presidents. The sitting president really only has a checks & balances control over any budget, and that is extremely limited to submitting an initial budget which is categorically ignored by congresses controlled by the opposing party, and then the up or down veto. Since the SC ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional, the president really only has the bully pulpit with which to lobby Congress to make any changes to the budget.

[TitanTiger 22,006]

In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected.

I should add that it has been proven time and time again that even in times of recession, the revenue from tax collection always rises. It is NO surprise that it collected the most this year, its the most collected EVERY year. Using that as a point would be as useful using population growth as a proof of the success of the economy. There is no direct correlation.

You're missing the point. Of course if all things were equal, tax dollars will generally rise simply because of population growth and more workers in the workforce paying taxes. But the key is, even when you take inflation out of the equation, tax revenues rose, which takes some of the steam out of your premise. The other key is, this happened even with so-called "drastic" tax cuts. In other words, the government reduced the rates which (all things being equal) should result in less money coming in even after accounting for the population related growth mentioned above.

But instead, tax revenues rose significantly because the tax cuts spurred economic growth that outstrips any nominal gains made by simply having more workers available to pay taxes. People invested in new businesses or expanded current ones, which employed more people. Those workers had more money to spend so they put money back into the economy that way, which results in successful retailers and companies that pay taxes. I could go on, but the point is, you can't explain this away by appealing to "tax collection always rises" type arguments.

[otterinbham 0]

The true CONSERVATIVE Congress he had to work with. Clinton campaigned in 1996 that the budget could not balance the budget under any circumstance before 2003. The Conservatives balanced the budget. Clinton just happened to be in office when it happened. Hope this helps.

Great point, David. Taxing & spending is a constitutionally granted power of the Legislative branch. I wish more people would understand this whenever they talk about budgets (deficits or surpluses) under certain presidents. The sitting president really only has a checks & balances control over any budget, and that is extremely limited to submitting an initial budget which is categorically ignored by congresses controlled by the opposing party, and then the up or down veto. Since the SC ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional, the president really only has the bully pulpit with which to lobby Congress to make any changes to the budget.

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

[AUloggerhead 2,863]

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

It is true with respect to taxing & spending bills. If both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is free to submit a budget and then cajole & "negotiate" with the Congress over what bills get priority. However, the legislature will never give up their constitutional authority no matter who is President. Bringing home the bacon is how people like Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Byrd & Ted Stevens get entrenched in office.

I don't know why you included Reagan in that diatribe. His party only had a 1-vote majority in the Senate for the first 2 of his 8 years. The House was firmly in Democrat control the entire 8 years. The late former Speaker Tip O'Neil was (in)famous for regularly declaring President Reagan's annually submitted budgets "dead on arrival." And as we all know from reading the Constitution, all appropriations bills (i.e. spending) originate in the House. The Senate can only offer amendments to appropriations bills. The proper conclusion is that any budget that gets passed is really due to the heavy lifting efforts of the House, or more correctly, due to whichever party is in control of the House. However, public perception is such that the President at the time is totally responsible for resultant budget deficits/surlpluses (e.g. Reagan/clinton.) Of course, this is a false perception. Congress really controls the country's pursestrings.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

It is true with respect to taxing & spending bills. If both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is free to submit a budget and then cajole & "negotiate" with the Congress over what bills get priority. However, the legislature will never give up their constitutional authority no matter who is President. Bringing home the bacon is how people like Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Byrd & Ted Stevens get entrenched in office.

I don't know why you included Reagan in that diatribe. His party only had a 1-vote majority in the Senate for the first 2 of his 8 years. The House was firmly in Democrat control the entire 8 years. The late former Speaker Tip O'Neil was (in)famous for regularly declaring President Reagan's annually submitted budgets "dead on arrival." And as we all know from reading the Constitution, all appropriations bills (i.e. spending) originate in the House. The Senate can only offer amendments to appropriations bills. The proper conclusion is that any budget that gets passed is really due to the heavy lifting efforts of the House, or more correctly, due to whichever party is in control of the House. However, public perception is such that the President at the time is totally responsible for resultant budget deficits/surlpluses (e.g. Reagan/clinton.) Of course, this is a false perception. Congress really controls the country's pursestrings.

I include Reagan for a simple reason: He was particularly adept at dividing the Democrats and getting moderates to vote his way on critical issues of the day such as the deep tax cuts that ultimately led to the historic economic expansion of the US economy and the increased military spending that ultimately forced the Soviet Union into economic bankruptcy as it tried to compete (Gorbachev has said as much). So moderate Democrats wound up voting Reagan's way as often as Tip Oneil's. If a president is simply a helpless enabler of everything Congress did, then how do you explain his successes?

That being said, I understand your point completely. However, the President has immense bargaining power in dealing with Congressional leaders and, by coordinating with the majority leadership, typically coordinates what legislation gets pushed through. Rove in particular pushed particularly noxious legislation to the forefront, such as the Prescription Act (reason enough to hate the man) and No Child Left Behind. These bills did not originate in some congressman's brain. Instead, they originated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But back to Bush 43. The man had a Veto stamp. And never used it until this year. So he has ownership of the sorry track record that is about to play havoc with the American economy over the next twenty five years.

[DKW 86 8,097]

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

It is true with respect to taxing & spending bills. If both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is free to submit a budget and then cajole & "negotiate" with the Congress over what bills get priority. However, the legislature will never give up their constitutional authority no matter who is President. Bringing home the bacon is how people like Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Byrd & Ted Stevens get entrenched in office.

I don't know why you included Reagan in that diatribe. His party only had a 1-vote majority in the Senate for the first 2 of his 8 years. The House was firmly in Democrat control the entire 8 years. The late former Speaker Tip O'Neil was (in)famous for regularly declaring President Reagan's annually submitted budgets "dead on arrival." And as we all know from reading the Constitution, all appropriations bills (i.e. spending) originate in the House. The Senate can only offer amendments to appropriations bills. The proper conclusion is that any budget that gets passed is really due to the heavy lifting efforts of the House, or more correctly, due to whichever party is in control of the House. However, public perception is such that the President at the time is totally responsible for resultant budget deficits/surlpluses (e.g. Reagan/clinton.) Of course, this is a false perception. Congress really controls the country's pursestrings.

I include Reagan for a simple reason: He was particularly adept at dividing the Democrats and getting moderates to vote his way on critical issues of the day such as the deep tax cuts that ultimately led to the historic economic expansion of the US economy and the increased military spending that ultimately forced the Soviet Union into economic bankruptcy as it tried to compete (Gorbachev has said as much). So moderate Democrats wound up voting Reagan's way as often as Tip Oneil's. If a president is simply a helpless enabler of everything Congress did, then how do you explain his successes?

That being said, I understand your point completely. However, the President has immense bargaining power in dealing with Congressional leaders and, by coordinating with the majority leadership, typically coordinates what legislation gets pushed through. Rove in particular pushed particularly noxious legislation to the forefront, such as the Prescription Act (reason enough to hate the man) and No Child Left Behind. These bills did not originate in some congressman's brain. Instead, they originated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But back to Bush 43. The man had a Veto stamp. And never used it until this year. So he has ownership of the sorry track record that is about to play havoc with the American economy over the next twenty five years.

Other than keeping Kerry and Gore out of ofice, Bush 43 may end up being one of, if not the worst fiscal president in history. Just could not find that veto stamp....pity.

[TexasTiger 15,476]

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

It is true with respect to taxing & spending bills. If both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is free to submit a budget and then cajole & "negotiate" with the Congress over what bills get priority. However, the legislature will never give up their constitutional authority no matter who is President. Bringing home the bacon is how people like Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Byrd & Ted Stevens get entrenched in office.

I don't know why you included Reagan in that diatribe. His party only had a 1-vote majority in the Senate for the first 2 of his 8 years. The House was firmly in Democrat control the entire 8 years. The late former Speaker Tip O'Neil was (in)famous for regularly declaring President Reagan's annually submitted budgets "dead on arrival." And as we all know from reading the Constitution, all appropriations bills (i.e. spending) originate in the House. The Senate can only offer amendments to appropriations bills. The proper conclusion is that any budget that gets passed is really due to the heavy lifting efforts of the House, or more correctly, due to whichever party is in control of the House. However, public perception is such that the President at the time is totally responsible for resultant budget deficits/surlpluses (e.g. Reagan/clinton.) Of course, this is a false perception. Congress really controls the country's pursestrings.

And Congress passes tax cuts. So extending your logic, the Dem congress in 1981 is responsible for the tax cuts Republicans credit Reagan for.

BTW, you give the impression that Reagan may have submitted balanced budgets but those pesky Dems just wouldn't enact them. He NEVER submitted anything even close to a balanced budget. It was never a priority for him. He was a big spender. Facts is facts.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

It is true with respect to taxing & spending bills. If both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is free to submit a budget and then cajole & "negotiate" with the Congress over what bills get priority. However, the legislature will never give up their constitutional authority no matter who is President. Bringing home the bacon is how people like Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Byrd & Ted Stevens get entrenched in office.

I don't know why you included Reagan in that diatribe. His party only had a 1-vote majority in the Senate for the first 2 of his 8 years. The House was firmly in Democrat control the entire 8 years. The late former Speaker Tip O'Neil was (in)famous for regularly declaring President Reagan's annually submitted budgets "dead on arrival." And as we all know from reading the Constitution, all appropriations bills (i.e. spending) originate in the House. The Senate can only offer amendments to appropriations bills. The proper conclusion is that any budget that gets passed is really due to the heavy lifting efforts of the House, or more correctly, due to whichever party is in control of the House. However, public perception is such that the President at the time is totally responsible for resultant budget deficits/surlpluses (e.g. Reagan/clinton.) Of course, this is a false perception. Congress really controls the country's pursestrings.

And Congress passes tax cuts. So extending your logic, the Dem congress in 1981 is responsible for the tax cuts Republicans credit Reagan for.

BTW, you give the impression that Reagan may have submitted balanced budgets but those pesky Dems just wouldn't enact them. He NEVER submitted anything even close to a balanced budget. It was never a priority for him. He was a big spender. Facts is facts.

Actually, you're right. But tax cuts are far more important than short-term deficits. While Reagan's defense spending drove up the deficit, it also had a vital geopolitical need--namely blunting the thrust of the Soviet Union. The wisdom of this strategy became apparent by the end of the 1980s. At the same time, the tax cuts stimulated the capital markets in an unprecedented way, leading to what has essentially been a 27-year long economic expansion interrupted only by two very mild recessions.

Reagan's overspending, however, did not include open-ended entitlement commitments that the country could not eventually fulfill.

[TexasTiger 15,476]

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

It is true with respect to taxing & spending bills. If both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is free to submit a budget and then cajole & "negotiate" with the Congress over what bills get priority. However, the legislature will never give up their constitutional authority no matter who is President. Bringing home the bacon is how people like Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Byrd & Ted Stevens get entrenched in office.

I don't know why you included Reagan in that diatribe. His party only had a 1-vote majority in the Senate for the first 2 of his 8 years. The House was firmly in Democrat control the entire 8 years. The late former Speaker Tip O'Neil was (in)famous for regularly declaring President Reagan's annually submitted budgets "dead on arrival." And as we all know from reading the Constitution, all appropriations bills (i.e. spending) originate in the House. The Senate can only offer amendments to appropriations bills. The proper conclusion is that any budget that gets passed is really due to the heavy lifting efforts of the House, or more correctly, due to whichever party is in control of the House. However, public perception is such that the President at the time is totally responsible for resultant budget deficits/surlpluses (e.g. Reagan/clinton.) Of course, this is a false perception. Congress really controls the country's pursestrings.

And Congress passes tax cuts. So extending your logic, the Dem congress in 1981 is responsible for the tax cuts Republicans credit Reagan for.

BTW, you give the impression that Reagan may have submitted balanced budgets but those pesky Dems just wouldn't enact them. He NEVER submitted anything even close to a balanced budget. It was never a priority for him. He was a big spender. Facts is facts.

Actually, you're right. But tax cuts are far more important than short-term deficits. While Reagan's defense spending drove up the deficit, it also had a vital geopolitical need--namely blunting the thrust of the Soviet Union. The wisdom of this strategy became apparent by the end of the 1980s. At the same time, the tax cuts stimulated the capital markets in an unprecedented way, leading to what has essentially been a 27-year long economic expansion interrupted only by two very mild recessions.

Reagan's overspending, however, did not include open-ended entitlement commitments that the country could not eventually fulfill.

Unfortunately it led to a pattern of long-term deficits, not short-term, and a generation of Republicans with a mindset that deficits don't matter. I'm not necessarily talking about you, but that has been the standard line now for more than a quarter century, "as a percentage of GDP, blah, blah, blah," as our debt grows each year as well as the interest we need to pay on that debt. It has coincided with a societal mentaility toward taking on greater debt as individuals/families.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm sorry, but that's not the case when a congress and a president hail from the same party. In that situation, the president acts as party leader and coordinates with the Senate and House leaders to determine what legislation gets pushed through. It happened with Reagan, it happened with Roosevelt, it happened with Lyndon Johnson, and it happened with Clinton for the first two years of his presidency.

For six years, Bush either had an outright majority or a near majority in the Senate. He had an absolute opportunity to coordinate party initiatives. He failed to do so because Bush is, at heart, a big government president far more comfortable with the likes of Lyndon Johnson than Calvin Coolidge.

It is true with respect to taxing & spending bills. If both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is free to submit a budget and then cajole & "negotiate" with the Congress over what bills get priority. However, the legislature will never give up their constitutional authority no matter who is President. Bringing home the bacon is how people like Dan Rostenkowski, Robert Byrd & Ted Stevens get entrenched in office.

I don't know why you included Reagan in that diatribe. His party only had a 1-vote majority in the Senate for the first 2 of his 8 years. The House was firmly in Democrat control the entire 8 years. The late former Speaker Tip O'Neil was (in)famous for regularly declaring President Reagan's annually submitted budgets "dead on arrival." And as we all know from reading the Constitution, all appropriations bills (i.e. spending) originate in the House. The Senate can only offer amendments to appropriations bills. The proper conclusion is that any budget that gets passed is really due to the heavy lifting efforts of the House, or more correctly, due to whichever party is in control of the House. However, public perception is such that the President at the time is totally responsible for resultant budget deficits/surlpluses (e.g. Reagan/clinton.) Of course, this is a false perception. Congress really controls the country's pursestrings.

And Congress passes tax cuts. So extending your logic, the Dem congress in 1981 is responsible for the tax cuts Republicans credit Reagan for.

BTW, you give the impression that Reagan may have submitted balanced budgets but those pesky Dems just wouldn't enact them. He NEVER submitted anything even close to a balanced budget. It was never a priority for him. He was a big spender. Facts is facts.

Actually, you're right. But tax cuts are far more important than short-term deficits. While Reagan's defense spending drove up the deficit, it also had a vital geopolitical need--namely blunting the thrust of the Soviet Union. The wisdom of this strategy became apparent by the end of the 1980s. At the same time, the tax cuts stimulated the capital markets in an unprecedented way, leading to what has essentially been a 27-year long economic expansion interrupted only by two very mild recessions.

Reagan's overspending, however, did not include open-ended entitlement commitments that the country could not eventually fulfill.

Unfortunately it led to a pattern of long-term deficits, not short-term, and a generation of Republicans with a mindset that deficits don't matter. I'm not necessarily talking about you, but that has been the standard line now for more than a quarter century, "as a percentage of GDP, blah, blah, blah," as our debt grows each year as well as the interest we need to pay on that debt. It has coincided with a societal mentaility toward taking on greater debt as individuals/families.

I think that's a fair critique. I also think that the economic situation was far different in the early 1980s than it is today. Whereas it was imperative to jump start an economy mired in statism, overtaxation, and overregulation, we have had a sustained 25-year economic boom with virtually no retrenchment. Yet, nobody on either side of the aisle has had the fiscal discipline to really address the critical issue: The continued growth of entitlements.

Now, on the other side of the coin, I think overall debt as a percentage of GDP is a good measuring stick for relative economic health--especially when you look at the immense growth in household wealth. The problem is complacency. Because nobody really appreciates how the entitlement issue is about to mushroom in this country. Essentially, all the politicians have dodged this issue, leaving it to the next batch of elected officials to resolve.