What Would Reagan Do?
If you recall, Reagan came in during hard economic times and trouble in the middle east.
Reagan didn’t face a walk in the park. The unemployment rate in 1980 was 7.1 percent, almost exactly the same as now. Inflation, averaging 12.5 percent for the year, and the prime interest rate, averaging over 15 percent, were much higher. Public confidence was low. Speaking to the nation on behalf of his economic program on Feb. 5, Reagan said the nation was in “the worst economic mess since the Great Depression.”
January 28th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I think this speaks to a good point…. Reagan was able to put aside political pressures (lifestyle choices, abortion, etc.) to reach across a line and jump-start a failing economy. History suggests he did a good job at such things.
What is ironic is that during the election, all we heard about from the GOP is that they were looking for the new Reagan…. Yet, each and every candidate they threw out was unwilling to bend on pet projects or interests groups and wanted to participate in the same bipartisan politics that have little hope of working in the long term.
While Steve is skeptical of Obama’s rhetoric about reaching to the other side (skeptisism that is warranted), I just hope that Obama has the success that Reagan enjoyed.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:31 am
remind me… didn’t he do a bunch of “tax cuts for the rich” or something?
January 29th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Yep, and so did Bush II. Apparently tax cuts for the rich aren’t a silver bullet. So Obama is trying some tax cuts for the not-so-rich, as well as domestic spending. When not-rich people spend money, where do you think it goes? Mostly to the rich anyways, but it helps out the underlings along the way.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
It’s almost as if the president is a figurehead who actually has fairly little influence on the economy, and that the American economy goes through natural cycles and events which it corrects for primarily on its own.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
President Obama sure isn’t acting like he has no control over the current situation. Would you say you disagree with him?
January 29th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Whether the economy can fix itself or not is a moot point. The fact is that Americans voted for radical action by electing Obama by a wide margin. Inactivity on his part would signal more of the same. Consumer confidence needs to increase and folks need jobs. Putting people to work and giving them hope for better days could increase spending which could ultimately lead to the jump-start we need.
Would you prefer that Obama do nothing and simply bide his time? If so, are you going to complain that he isn’t doing anything as president?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:24 am
I’m not sure that Obama ran on a “radical action” platform. His stated positions were pretty much boilerplate Democrat with the occasional nod to Republican sensibilities. Although you might have better traction arguing that America voted for him despite his official aversion to radical action. I suppose it depends on what average voter X thought “Hope” really meant.
And by the way, yes, I hope he does nothing and lets the inevitable economic re-alignment (and, unfortunately, pain) work through the system so we can come out of this with increased well-being, but no, he’s going to “help” and slice a shrinking pie into smaller and smaller pieces.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:36 am
What would Regan do?
Do you not realize you are talking about the man who oversaw an era of unprecedented and irresponsible government spending that we are still paying the price for to this day? Regan and his republican congress may have ‘talked the talk’ about small government principles, but you seem to be forgetting their actual spending habits, which were most assuredly not consistent with any philosophy that does not support big government.
Specifically, federal spending exploded from $1219 billion under Carter to $1499 billion during Reagan’s second term. This is a 23% increase.
For comparison, the comparable figure for Clinton (with a congress that varied from Democrat to Republican) is 13%. The GDP also grew faster under Clinton, so if we were to express this in terms of government size as % economy the figures would be even more lopsided.
This is all inflation adjusted.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
considering the Bush bailout. I would think a huge government spending stimulus package (remember that $700 billion one?) would signal more of the same.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
To the extent that their is change in the bailout bill, that change seems very similar to many previous federal budget proposals in that its packed to the gills with pork. This time around almost all of it benefits Democratic congress members. Which if you ask me, is also more of the same.