Posted by
Compassionate Conservative on Monday, May 04, 2009 1:58:45 PM
Yesterday, I got "bashed" in a comment from a liberal poster with the userid "pparenting" using some of the same, old, tired, discredited arguments liberal posters always trot out. This time it was the "Reagan deficit" argument, whereby the libbie argues that conservatives have no business complaining about deficits, since the conservative icon Reagan ran a large one, bigger than liberal President Jimmy Carter's deficit.
I cover this in more detail in by entry entitled "Irrelevant and Out of Context," but to review, this argument is easily discredited in two ways. First, Reagan ushered in an era of prosperity that lasted almost 30 years, including the Presidency of closet Reaganite (at least in terms of economic policy) Bill Clinton. This era was possible only because Reagan was able to repair, using among other devices tax cuts and lowering the rate of increase of spending, the damage Carter did to the economy in the late 70's, including among other problems 10% unemployment and 13% inflation. Second, though, and more importantly, is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, [and] to pay the debts..." In short, Congress passes budgets, not the President.
So, libbies, it isn't a good argument to say that Reagan had deficits and Clinton balanced the budget, because the Congress in the 1980s was Democratic, and the Congress during the latter half of the 1990s, when the budget was balanced, was Republican. Of course, in the 2000s the deficits ran up again, but this was at least in part due to G. W. Bush's attempt to stabilize the Middle East, an effort that will prove worthwhile in the long run.
So let me suggest a new argument for liberals to bash Reagan with. Since Reagan did usher in that era of prosperity - an era coming to a screeching halt with the advent of the Obama administration - just say, "prosperity is bad!" After all, prosperous people find all kinds of things to waste their money on, everything from boats and vacation homes to fancy foreign automobiles and oversize houses. Furthermore, whenever the top 90 - 95% of the population is getting rich from lower taxes and a humming free-market economy, there are always the 5 - 10% of losers who just can't get their lives together enough to participate in the big party. These people always, therefore, feel bad, and feeling bad is bad. Anytime anyone feels bad, we have to fix their problem immediately, even if it means bringing the rest of the country down to their level.
The flip side of this new, improved libbie argument is that in the middle of a recession, everyone feels the same - crummy - so that society's perpetual losers are on an equal footing with the many former winners. Furthermore, none of the minor winners has to be jealous of the major winners - doctors, lawyers, business executives, IT consultants, etc. - who make the really big bucks. During recessions, we'll show those "rich" people why they shouldn't work so hard and be so successful; it's just not fair. So in bad times, fairness is the order of the day, as it should be, when everyone's income is in the toilet.
See how easy this was, libbies? In future posts, I'll provide more fresh new arguments for you to use in the battle of ideas. Maybe then you'll love me.