Taxes: What People Forget About Reagan

LJ_Reloaded

バクスター の
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
21,217
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110597/taxes-what-people-forget-about-reagan?mod=taxes-filing

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/fi/qa/32/28/84.gif

Those who oppose higher taxes and are fed up with record levels of U.S. debt may pine for Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of lower taxes and smaller government.

But it's worth considering just what Reagan did -- and didn't do -- as lawmakers grapple with many of the same issues that their 1980s counterparts faced: a deep recession, high deficits and a rip-roaring political divide over taxes.

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

"What people forget about Ronald Reagan was that he very much converted to base broadening as a means of reducing deficits and as a means of tax reform," said Eugene Steuerle, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute who had helped lay the groundwork for tax reform in 1986 and served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary during Reagan's second term.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

"Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president's re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas," wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today.

How might Reagan fare today?

Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.

"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.

The reason was two-fold, Steuerle said. The first was a desire to crack down on the proliferation of tax shelters. But the point of cracking down was to boost tax revenue. That, in turn, could reduce the need to impose other tax increases to combat budget deficits.
 
Reagan was a lousy President who raised taxes, increased spending and gets undeserved credit for the collaspe of Russia and communism. The Right doesn't remember it that way but it's the truth.
 
Reagan was a lousy President who raised taxes, increased spending and gets undeserved credit for the collaspe of Russia and communism. The Right doesn't remember it that way but it's the truth.

Also, when Reagan and Obama had been in office for the same amount of time, Obama was usually more popular with the voters.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Right now the unemployment rate is 9.6%. In November and December of 1982 it was 10.8%.
http://www.p360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=44&count=all
 
Last edited:
Why were taxes raised?





At what point will "Congress" under Obama have to begin massive tax increases to cover the debt he has accumulated which is greater than the debt of all his predecessors combined?

We know the Democrats went no where near writing a budget this year in order to be able to blame the increases on the incoming Congress, one where they think they will be immune from blame in as a minority party...
 
You know Obama is in trouble when ya'll have to keep digging back into the past and screaming LOOK AT REAGAN!!!





Why not REMEMBER NIXON!???
 
Don't you just HATE it when you get a Republican President with a Republican House of Representatives and they get to spending like mad...




Because sending originates in the House, so some of this blame DOES get heaped also on the Republican Speaker of the House, now what was his name?

What was his name?
 
Also, when Reagan and Obama had been in office for the same amount of time, Obama was usually more popular with the voters.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Right now the unemployment rate is 9.6%. In November and December of 1982 it was 10.8%.
http://www.p360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=44&count=all

AND OF COURSE we can rely on Professor Wiki, PhD Spellcheck, to supply us with a well thought-out analysis, unbiased, unpartisan without having to rely on the de facto cut&paste, the vaunted link...

Usually more popular?

USUALLY???
 
I'll see your link Prof and raise it a c&p...

The 2009 federal deficit was $1.413 trillion dollars, the largest in history. In fact, it was triple the 2008 deficit, which was the largest in history up until then. Even as a fraction of GDP, it was the largest ever in peacetime. What caused such a deficit? Was it tax cuts? Was it war? Was it bailouts? How, exactly, did Bush pull it off?

The tricky part about answering such questions is that all we know is what happened. We do not know what would have happened had we done something different. So we have to guess. That is, if you blame a tax cut, you have to guess what federal revenue would have been without that tax cut. Then the difference between that guess and the actual revenue is what you blame on the tax cut.

Key word: guess.

Bush-bashers like to guess (figure below*). They like to guess, for example, that revenues would have been larger than they'd ever been in history as a fraction of GDP if Bush hadn't cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 35%.

[*http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/two_years_that_changed_the_wor.html]

Here is how I am going to guess: I will use 2007 as a baseline year, and then see what the differences were between 2007 and 2009. (For more on FY 2007 and the years just preceding it, see Part I, "The Good Old Days.")

This is reasonable for several reasons. First, 2007 was about "normal" in terms of economic activity, federal budget, and debt, with good trends in all of those areas. (Unless otherwise stated, a "year" here is the fiscal year October through September, since that is the way the government keeps its books.)

Secondly, there were no huge policy changes in 2007 or the years just preceding it. The Bush tax cuts took effect several years before, in 2001 and 2003. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars had been ongoing for years. If the tax cuts and wars caused bad deficits, 2007 should have seen a bad deficit.

Third, 2007 and 2009 were not that far apart. One would think that significant differences in budgets between two such close years could be attributed to real differences in events or policies between those two years. That is, we should look for "blame" in the areas where those years differ (e.g., recession, bailouts, stimuli) and not where they don't (e.g., tax rates, war on terror).

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, this method does not require exotic mathematical models to predict the would-have-beens. In effect, I'm using 2007 as what 2009 would have been, everything else equal. In this way, we compare actual counted dollars, not macroeconomic models and equations.

So how do those two years compare? The tables below list the primary federal budget numbers.

In raw numbers, revenue fell $463B from 2007 to 2009 and outlays grew $789B, causing an "extra" $1,252B of deficit. It was mostly extra spending, but not all. As percentages of GDP, revenue fell by 3.7% of GDP and outlays grew by 5.1% of GDP.

Now here is where I will introduce a "model" of sorts. My model says we should expect two fiscal years so close together to have roughly equal revenues and outlays as percentages of GDP, everything else equal.

Why is that reasonable? Because that had been the case for the past half-century. (For the statistically inclined, the linear regression estimates of revenue and outlays for 2007, based on the previous fifty years, are 18.4% and 21.1% of GDP. The actual values were 18.5% and 19.6%. One could also invoke Hauser's Law for revenue.)

Notice a couple of things. First, FY 2007 saw above-average revenues and below-average spending. This was a good half-decade after the Bush tax cuts and Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Also, deficits were on a shrinking trend through the Republican-controlled Congress years of 2003 through 2007.

The next things to notice are the 2009 values. Revenues were lower than the lowest of the previous half-century (14.8% vs 16.1%), and outlays were higher than the highest of the previous half-century (24.7% vs 23.5%) -- extreme values on both ends of the budget. FY 2009 was bad!

FY 2007 was a completely nominal, average, white-bread year following a string of fairly nominal, average, white-bread years. FY 2009 was way out of whack in all respects, both on the revenue side and the outlay side. There was no eight-year trend leading to 2009; it was big, bad, and sudden. The 2009 deficit was unprecedented in U.S. peacetime history, including the Great Depression (9.9% of GDP vs 5.9%).

A reasonable person would look at what happened between 2007 and 2009 to try to explain the 2009 budget numbers. In those two years, the world changed.

Things that happened after FY2007, but before or during FY2009:

• An all-Democrat Congress started writing federal budgets.
• A housing bubble burst in addition to a financial crisis and a recession.
• TARP.
• Barack Obama elected, inaugurated, and governing as president.
• Obama's stimulus.
• The FY2009 omnibus bill and other Democrat-initiated spending (e.g., Cash for Clunkers).
Things that didn't:

• The Bush tax cuts.
• Big swing in War-on-Terror spending.
• Increased debt-servicing costs.
Bush Tax Cuts? There were no Bush tax cuts between 2007 and 2009; they became effective in 2001 and 2003. If you blame the Bush tax cuts for the low revenue in 2009, how do you explain the perfectly normal, even above normal, revenues in 2006 and 2007?

Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror? Total spending on the entire WOT was lower in 2009 than in 2007. The Congressional Budget Office put the 2007 figure at $171B and the 2009 figure at $155B. These figures include not only funding for all military operations, but also funding for diplomatic operations, foreign aid, funding to indigenous Iraq and Afghan forces, etc. Were it not for the WOT, 2007 would have been in surplus by $10B.

Bush's Debt? Interest on the debt went down between 2007 and 2009. It was $237B in 2007 and $187B in 2009. So you cannot blame the interest payments on the debt accrued from previous years of Bush tax cuts and wars, either.

Bush's Wall Street Bailout? You probably heard that TARP, which Senator Obama voted for along with most Democrats, cost $700B. No it didn't. Per the CBO, its actual cost in FY 2009 was $151B. (The CBO now estimates TARP's total cost, with many loans repaid, to come in at $66B.)

Obama's Stimulus? Obama's stimulus explains $180B of the FY 2009 deficit, according to the CBO. (In total, the stimulus is expected to add $814B to the cumulative 2009-2019 deficit.)

The Recession? Bingo. For starters, a revenue fall of 3.7% of GDP is $527B. However, the CBO says Obama's stimulus accounts for $69B in revenue losses and tax credits in FY 2009. So we can chalk up $458B to the recession based on tax rates in place prior to 2009. That's not because tax rates fell, but because revenue-generating activity fell -- jobs, corporate profits, dividends, capital gains, interest income.

When people lose their jobs due to a recession, government spending on functions like unemployment payments and Medicaid go up. The federal government spent $233B more in 2009 than in 2007 on what it calls "health care services" and "income security." But $67B of that came from the stimulus. So the part due to policies in place prior to Obama is $166B.

"Natural" Cost Growth. After the above, we are left with $313B that can't be cleanly accounted for. Some of that could be costs that grew at about the rate of GDP. But nominal GDP went up only 2.5%. The costs of old-age programs grew a bit faster due to the aging population. I'm willing to generously allocate $150B to such natural cost growth.

Other Spending by Democrats. What remains is $163B. The Obama stimulus was not the only Democrat-authored spending. For example, Congress passed and Obama signed an "omnibus" spending bill of $410B for FY 2009 in 2009, after Bush was out of office. Not all of that $410B was above the Bush-approved level, but much of it was. Democrats wrote both the FY 2008 and 2009 budgets, then passed more spending (e.g., Cash for Clunkers) in 2009 on top of the stimulus. It is hard to pin down an exact number, but $163B is probably an underestimate.

The above accounting can be summarized in a pie chart.

...

I agree with the JournoListers that the recession itself had a lot to do with it. But Bush had little to do with it, especially the two things normally blamed on him: tax cuts and Iraq. Bush "policies," absent the WOT and the recession/financial crisis, would have led to a surplus, not a deficit at all.

TARP was pretty darned bipartisan. But even so, it was only 11% of that 2009 deficit. Even the WOT was fairly bipartisan. (Obama is still spending about the same on the WOT; he just shifted out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.)

I could also say natural cost growth was inevitable or bipartisan, but Republicans tried to deal with entitlement growth multiple times. In fact, the Republican Congress passed Medicare reform in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it. Democrats killed Bush's Social Security reform initiatives in the crib.

Whatever exactly happened between 2007 and 2009, the before and after pictures are completely different. The House, Senate, and presidency all switched parties.* We now talk in spending units of "trillions." The CBO foresees no future deficit as low as 2007's, even after all the wars and recessions are assumed over. The federal government owns two of the Big Three auto companies. And all the above was before national health care.
 
Okay boys, I'm going all in...

Reasonable people of all political persuasions will acknowledge that tax cuts worked for Democratic President John Kennedy and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan oversaw significant reductions of confiscatory tax rates on high earners and taxpayers generally. In both cases, records show that Treasury revenues increased with the rate of investment of the freed assets.

Often overlooked in the debate over tax policy is the success of the Clinton-era tax reductions -- reductions that, though fairly recent, are unknown to most Americans. That may be no accident.

The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.

The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

The Clinton tax policies of the early '90s were based on rate increases and luck -- the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

Jerry Shenk
The American Thinker

I know, I know, I'm supposed to get all my ideas from the Huffington Post. But I bet they credit Clinton for all the good he did too!
 
Millions of Americans fell off the tax rolls following the 2001 rate reductions on income. Today, the top 1% of earners pays more taxes than the bottom 95%. Who really believes that taxing this top group even more is going to pay everyone's tab for the ambitious and irresponsible spending objectives of the Democrats in Washington?



*Atlas Shrug*

You got me boss...
 
In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years were smoke and mirrors.

Clinton NEVER balanced spending with revenue. Budgeted spending is not the same thing as actual spending.

No charge for the accounting lesson.
 
In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years were smoke and mirrors.

Clinton NEVER balanced spending with revenue. Budgeted spending is not the same thing as actual spending.

No charge for the accounting lesson.

That is a great summary. Thank you for posting it.

Good morning gentlemen.

I am having a rare sick day. I'm planting my ass in a chair and staying put...
 
Why were taxes raised?


At what point will "Congress" under Obama have to begin massive tax increases to cover the debt he has accumulated which is greater than the debt of all his predecessors combined?

We know the Democrats went no where near writing a budget this year in order to be able to blame the increases on the incoming Congress, one where they think they will be immune from blame in as a minority party...

Taxes were shifted from high income groups to the middle class; income tax cuts on the wealthy and payroll taxes, e.g., FICA, went up for the middle class. Then the money was 'borrowed' from the Social Security fund.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif
 
I have to say, it warms my heart to see people like you posting here. Reading some of the other post its clear to see most of you are missing the big picture. Keep on posting away; after all, you can do no damage in the real world. God bless your little crazy hard and mind. I'm sure your fellow wacko's love you.






http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110597/taxes-what-people-forget-about-reagan?mod=taxes-filing

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/fi/qa/32/28/84.gif

Those who oppose higher taxes and are fed up with record levels of U.S. debt may pine for Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of lower taxes and smaller government.

But it's worth considering just what Reagan did -- and didn't do -- as lawmakers grapple with many of the same issues that their 1980s counterparts faced: a deep recession, high deficits and a rip-roaring political divide over taxes.

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.

For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.

"What people forget about Ronald Reagan was that he very much converted to base broadening as a means of reducing deficits and as a means of tax reform," said Eugene Steuerle, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute who had helped lay the groundwork for tax reform in 1986 and served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary during Reagan's second term.

There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

"Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president's re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas," wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.

Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a smidge below the average under President Carter -- and a smidge above the 40-year average today.

How might Reagan fare today?

Reagan's behavior might not pass muster with those voters today who insist their Congressmen treat every proposed tax increase as poisonous to the republic.

"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.

The reason was two-fold, Steuerle said. The first was a desire to crack down on the proliferation of tax shelters. But the point of cracking down was to boost tax revenue. That, in turn, could reduce the need to impose other tax increases to combat budget deficits.
 
The House of Representatives ordains, annoints, and appoints all money legislation. Presidents merely send the House wish lists. Generally speaking, if a Congressman is on fire he wont let you put the fire out till you bribe him.

Reagan was no conservative, he was a RINO. He spent 8 years fucking with the USSR, arming the ragheads, and unleashing the bankers. The slickest thing he did was create a government agency that buys-sells stock, to reward friends and punish their competition. Using tax dollars, of course.
 
Don't you just HATE it when you get a Republican President with a Republican House of Representatives and they get to spending like mad...

Because sending originates in the House, so some of this blame DOES get heaped also on the Republican Speaker of the House, now what was his name?

What was his name?

Regardless of what the Constitution says, the presidential administration creates a budget, and presents it to the House. The House adds and subtracts, and returns the budget to the president, who may sign or veto it.

Every one of Reagan's budgets arrived at Congress with a huge budget deficit written into it. George Will said that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been passed in its entirety, the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was.

Regan's economic policies were inherently fraudulent.
 
Regardless of what the Constitution says, the presidential administration creates a budget, and presents it to the House. The House adds and subtracts, and returns the budget to the president, who may sign or veto it.

Every one of Reagan's budgets arrived at Congress with a huge budget deficit written into it. George Will said that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been passed in its entirety, the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was.

Regan's economic policies were inherently fraudulent.

Hey, if he raised taxes, should he be your hero? :confused:
 
Regardless of history, the medicine for our sick economy is less government and prudent spending within our means. Republicans promise it and I hope they keep their promises, Democrats don't even pretend to try to control spending, instead trying to make the case that government should have supreme power and "guide" the people of our nation back into prosperity through more spending and income redistribution. Who ya gonna vote for?
 
Back
Top