There may have been good reason for them to be the farther of deficits, but they where indeed the "fathers".
If your revenues suddenly get slashed isn't it logical that you're gonna run some deficits?
After adjusting for that they still ran large deficits, and such adjustment isn't necessary for this point, they where the first to run large sustained peacetime deficits. Reagan's deficits where less as a portion of the economy than FDR's (which at the peak dwarfed anyone else's), Wilson's (much higher than anyone else besides FDR), Lincoln's, and Obama's (similar levels to Lincoln's, and Lincoln had the excuse of a war where more American's died then in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenda, Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined). I think also Hoover's and also Bush II if you count 2009 as "belonging to" Bush.
If Carter had been reelected in 1980 he wouldn't have asked for those tax cuts.
If so, it would have been unfortunate.
We would have STILL had a major downturn in 81 and 82 but it wouldn't have been as severe
No way of knowing for sure, but with higher tax rates it could easily have been worse.
We also would have SAVED a lot of money on defense spending
Probably, but not as much more as you think because Carter had already started increasing the defense budget before Reagan was elected. Also lower spending in the 80s would have resulted in higher spending later on. One essentially certain factor, and one possible factor cover most of this. The certain factor is the the new equipment that Reagan bought, allowed future administrations to get buy with less R&D, and less procurement. The military was run down from Vietnam and post Vietnam spending restraint on defense, the extra military spending reversed that, replaced many worn out and/or outmoded weapons systems and other equipment, and developed new weapons. Without that extra spending the development and procurement would have been needed later on. The more debatable factor is the contribution of the extra defense spending towards the end of the cold war, which helped future presidents spend less on the military.
And social spending would likely have gone up a bit faster than it did. Much of the drive for that was from congress (which presumably would have had a similar composition, or if anything been even more Democratic because of the shift to the left, without which Carter never would have won a 2nd term), and Carter wouldn't have fought against it as much (and might have even been a leader in pushing for the increase).
There would have been no $1000 toilet seats and $500 bolts.
No your getting silly.
You're talking about what's "sustainable". That's ABSURD.
Not at all. $200bil deficits are sustainable for the US federal government forever. Its not just not absurd, its closer to absurd to say otherwise. If deficits where that level debt to GDP would be declining. Any time that is the general trend the deficits are essentially sustainable forever.
A problem with that point is that once you allow such deficits as the norm, the incentive may exist to always push them a bit bigger. Its easier rhetorically and politically to defend a balanced budget then to defend "a deficit small enough to drop debt as a percentage of GDP over time".
Also while I think calling Reagan "the father of deficits" is a bit silly, and not congruent with the facts, it is true that deficits where fairly high when he was president. |
