Smaller government: Federal employment grew by 61,000 during Reagan’s presidency
Which doesn't mean that Reagan didn't support smaller government, only that he failed to shrink it.
(Under Bill Clinton, by contrast, federal employment dropped by 373,000).
Mostly do the peace dividend, that was partially the result of Regan's build up (and the buildup was itself partially necessitated by the previous neglect of the military) . The DoD was shrunk. Drop out military reductions and civilian DoD reductions and you don't get that sorts
Smaller deficits and debt: Both nearly tripled on Reagan’s watch.
Same answer as above, except this is a more substantial point. That was a very serious increase in the deficit.
Not that "doubled" or "tripled" is a good way to measure debt or deficits. That depends too much on what went before. Its not a non-consideration, but "increased by x% of GDP", and "had deficits equal to x% of GDP" are more important for me; but the thing is Regan's debt and deficits, and increases of each where large by those measures as well. The debt and deficits are much smaller than Obama's, but that's a low hurdle to jump over.
The point is not that Reagan didn't care about budget deficits, but that he thought the tax cuts and restoring the capabilities of our military where sufficiently important to accept the deficit. I'd probably agree, considering the tax cut helped economic growth long term, and the military increase helped set the stage for the peace dividend, both of which helped Clinton balance the budget later. But I really would have liked to have had serious entitlement reform all the way back during Reagan's time in office. Even if it didn't help the budget deficits in the short term, it would have helped a lot by now. Unfortunately there was no way that he could have gotten done, even if he really wanted to (and I'm not sure it was a big thing for him). If he had gotten it done, I'd say his presidency would have contributed the most to fiscal sanity out of any presidency in modern American history, even with the large deficits, but of course it didn't happen, and even a serious effort at it didn't happen, so I can't make such a claim.
Lower taxes: Although Reagan muscled through a major tax cut in 1981, he followed up by raising taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986.
The tax increases later on
1 - Showed concern about the deficit, which "The Daily Beast" claims wasn't there
2 - Left us with a significant net tax cut after factoring in all of Reagan's tax changes.
Then there’s plank number five: Reaganite candidates must “oppos[e] amnesty for illegal immigrants.” Really? Because if you look up the word “amnesty” in Black’s Law Dictionary, you’ll find a reference to the 1986 bill that Reagan signed, which ended up granting amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants.
Here "the beast" makes a solid point.
Plank number six demands that candidates back the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what did Reagan do in his biggest confrontation with jihadist terror? When Hezbollah murdered 241 U.S. servicemen in Beirut in 1983, the Gipper didn’t surge; he withdrew the remaining American troops, and fast.
Probably a mistake in retrospect, but very understandable from the vantage point of that time. Also not really relevant to the plank. The plank was about Iraq and Afghanistan, not Lebanon. The plank is in the context of the post 9/11 2001 environment, not 1983.
Plank number 7 calls for “effective [read military] action to eliminate” Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs. But Reagan condemned Israel’s 1981 preventive strike against an Iraqi nuclear reactor.
I think Regan made the wrong decision here. But again its not directly part of the plank.
Reagan succeeded because he married a reputation for principle with an instinct for pragmatism. When Republicans lost big in the 1982 midterm elections because Democrats accused them of wanting to privatize Social Security, Reagan abandoned the idea and instead made a deal with Democrats that raised taxes and saved the program.
Politically that was pragmatic. Fiscally and in other ways not so much. But then I doubt much better was really possible. |
