Quiet Boom, jyl et. al --
This particular crap comes up every time somebody who's read one issue of The New Republic or the Village Voice believes they can "debunk" the Reagan Revolution...
First, Congress doesn't budget just for the next year -- if you're going to contract w/ the private sector or anybody else (and this is what I do, so don't EVEN tell me this is not how it happens) you don't just do so for one year. Carter, having botched everything he touched and having been advised he was particularly weak on defense and international security spending, forwarded a plan, which made it through Congress, to save his a$$ to have enormous amounts spent. Those commitments were what Reagan inherited. And, for those of you whose lips move when you read anything having to do with economics, it's not as though Reagan's policies were all put into effect upon his swearing in, nor that they'd have immediate impact once they were implemented. He had to lobby; he had to get legislation passed; he had to build confidence -- which is far and away the number one driver of investment. This turning-around of Carter's Stagflation economy (an economy w/o confidence, w/o faith and w/o the US' dominant swagger) takes time.
So this bullshyt canard about how Reagan "increased" spending and deficits in his early years is absolute fiction. If you're going to lie, jyl, don't insult us while doing so, flagrantly believing that nobody out here is going to see through it. OK, maybe you weren't lying. Maybe you were just suckered. Maybe you believe the largest economy in the world, battered within an inch of its life by feckless domestic and foreign policy can just turn upwards in a mere month, or fiscal quarter, or even fiscal year. Especially when the gov't has made spending commitments for several future fiscal years that Reagan inherited and had to manage.
But, even if the Reagan example was an innocent mistake, why did you so conveniently ignore Kennedy's fiscal and monetary successes in cutting taxes? You slap the "supply-side" label on the theory so you can deal with 1981 forward and just so happen to completely gloss over the fact that this theory, whatever you need to call it, has worked before. Feeble. Transparent. Sophomoric.
Reagan -- longest, strongest peacetime economy EVER. One non-recession bump, called a "recession" to get GHWB out of office, and Clinton takes credit for the remainder just for staying out of the way of the freight train Reagan let loose -- even if you must slavishly, blindly look at only '81-'83. It worked. Get TF over it.
QB -- I agree with your characterization of
some of the Reagan spending, but you fell for one of the most flagrant leftie lies ever told about Reagan. Don't do so again, 'K? It just makes their lies bolder next time round.
JP
Edit -- Reagan didn't have to "mange" Carter's disaster, he had to "manage" it.... oops