Not impotent. Spending would likely have been higher without him, as I pointed out the rate spending increased declined from 4 percent under Carter to 2.5% under Reagan (BTW to make it clear that's the increase in real spending, the nominal increase was higher for both presidents.)
So there seems to have been some effect (not necessarily a 1.5% reduction in the rate of increase, it could have been more or less than that, but its almost certainly a positive number), and Reagan had some significant influence, but he didn't have control. He couldn't impose spending levels that he wanted, just as presidents before and since generally have not been able to do so. (FDR might have had the greatest ability to do this, but even he couldn't get everything he wanted.)
Volcker CREATED the economic growth we saw during Reagan, Bush and Clinton.
Volker broker the back of the out of control inflation, which was an important prerequisite for the sustained growth going forward, but its only part of what was necessary. The cuts in tax rates under Reagan, and the deregulation under Carter and Reagan, where also important.
BUT, he created this facade that they WERE acceptable.
No that idea existed long before Reagan, and was also an idea Reagan did not himself support. |
