Have we lost track of our links this morning? My, my!

Soros dives into midterms
By Alexander Bolton

Billionaire financier George Soros hosted a fundraiser for Senate Democrats last week at his Manhattan home, making his first foray into politics after spending $25 million of his money in an effort to defeat President Bush last year.

Managed to get to the story desite the wayward link. This Reagan-worship among conservatives is a joke. Somehow the guy who nearly doubled federal spending over eight years is not a big-spender.

Look, I've got no problems with Reagan's spending spree or even his tax hikes. The proof is in the pudding, I'm a pragmatist, and Reagan's economic policies helped bring the misery index down to earth after the Disaster Named Carter.

But Peggy goes off to dreamland when she tries to get around Reagan's spending record. Her defense of Ronnie? "When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so."

This is high-larious. Because Reagan said some bad things about big spending, he gets a pass on all the big spending he actually did. And who "forced" him to spend? Marines with bayonets in the Oval Office?

Peggy can't dodge the numbers, and she knows it. Her criticism of Bush's spending and her excuse for Reagan's spending add up to predictable hypocrisy.

But Peggy goes off to dreamland when she tries to get around Reagan's spending record. Her defense of Ronnie? "When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so."

Peter Robinson over at the Corner said almost exactly the same thing the other day. (I roundly mocked him for it, which I'm sure left him weeping.) Is it really so hard to understand that it's not what you say, it's what you do that matters? That has always seemed elementary to me.

Timothy:

Unfortunately, that is rarely true in politics.

Practically the entire fluctuation in spending over the past twenty years tracks directly to the % of GDP being spent on the military.

Jim-- do you mean it's rarely true or rarely recognized?

Forget the Reagan angle. Is it the regnant opinion around here that bid spending is good?

Posted by: Paul J Cella at September 22, 2005 1:57 PM

Paul:

No, it's the opinion that we don't spend particularly much these days.

The Skeptical Optimist has an interesting post on same:

Our politicians and mainstream media are still braying about federal deficits, debt, and interest on the debt; I see new headlines every day about it. They are focusing on the money, they are still talking about raw dollars instead of percentages or ratios, they are still implying that any and all federal spending is tantamount to setting the money ablaze, and—as usual—they are predicting doomsday unless we elect (or kick out) so-and-so party or politician. In other words, they are still barking up the wrong tree.

Here’s a chart that shows two things: (1) Interest on the debt is still not heading us towards doomsday—and won’t, as long as the economy and tax receipts keep growing; and (2) spending on national security—intelligence, diplomacy, and military force potential—has been a roller coaster ride. Every time I see this chart it makes me wonder: What if we could have mustered the courage as a nation to keep national security spending on an even keel, and managed it effectively; might we have prevented a war or two?.....

confusing cause and effect.

Timothy:

It is rarely true. How many 'GOP rebels' are there in the House? 12, 15, maybe 20 at most? Then there's Ron Paul. That's about it. And don't forget, Pat Toomey isn't there anymore. Neither is Dick Armey.

And in the Senate, Jesse Helms is gone. The closest thing to a plain-speaking, cost-cutting, walk-the-talking Republican is probably Jon Kyl or Mitch McConnell or maybe Jeff Sessions. Perhaps Thune, Vitter, Burr, or DeMint is like that, but they are new.

Potomac fever knows no party affiliation.

Ah. I see we are talking about two different things. You're right, there are few of those types around anymore, because no one outside of a precious few care about cutting spending enough to vote based on it. My assertion that what people do is more important than what they say remains especially true in the face of that.

Reagan had a Democrat Congress to deal with. You'd think a GOP controlling both the Presidency and Congress would do better.

Still, it's a democracy. If there was a serious desire to cut govt spending among the public at large then it would be done.

Ali:

Yes, they are doing better.