Ronald Reagan, closet socialist
President Obama is being accused by some of pursuing a socialist agenda. His critics claim that under Obama, the federal government will consume more and more of what the American people produce, leaving less and less to be spent by the private economy.
It raises an interesting question: How much of our nation’s annual income OUGHT to be available for spending by the federal government? What’s the right level? Since 1970, the annual federal budget has been as low as 18.4 percent of our gross domestic product, and as high as 23.5 percent. (In 2008, preliminary figures say it was 20.5 percent.) (Source, Historical Tables, Office of Management and Budget).
Interestingly, that peak of 23.5 percent occurred in 1983, under President Ronald Reagan. In fact, the federal government consumed a greater share of our national income that year than in any year since the end of World War II.
To take it further, since 1947, the four years in which the federal government consumed the biggest chunk of our national income — the years in which Washington stole the most food off our children’s plates, as conservative rhetoric might put it — all occurred under Reagan.
They were, in order, 1983 (23.5 percent), 1982 (23.1 percent), 1985 (22.9 percent) and 1986 (22.4 percent).
Conversely, since 1970, the federal government spent the least amount of our national income in 2000 — 18.4 percent. That was under President Clinton.
In fact, the three post-’70 years in which the federal government consumed the smallest proportion of our national income were all under budgets signed into law by Clinton — 2000 (18.4 percent); 2001 (18.5 percent); 1999 (18.7 percent).
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
108 comments Add your comment
DB, Gwinnettian
February 26th, 2009
12:24 pm
“His critics claim that under Obama, the federal government will consume more and more of what the American people produce, leaving less and less to be spent by the private economy.”
Reminds me of another quote:
“Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
Shawny
February 26th, 2009
12:29 pm
Reagan spent a lot on defense. Clinton slashed defense spending. Obama is a socialist.
Who said this, “The era of big government is over”? Bill Clinton in 1996. Obama in 2009, the govt can’t get big enough.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 26th, 2009
12:43 pm
Shawny, did Clinton really slash defense spending? Or just carry out, essentially, what GHWB had proposed?
per
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.php
There is almost no difference between the level of funding proposed for defense by President Bush in his last fiscal year (FY) 1994-99 budget plan and the level of funding actually provided for defense over this six-year period under the Clinton Administration. Both Bush planned funding and actual funding amounted to $1.72 trillion (in FY 2001 dollars).
I’m pretty sure if you look at what Carter had proposed going forward for his second-term-that-never-was, and what Reagan actually spent, there’s not much daylight there, either. But I’ll let someone call me out on that, too pressed for time to look it up.
ByteMe
February 26th, 2009
12:44 pm
Uh oh, Jay. There you go messing with the Reagan religion again. It’s like the “flat-earthers” or the “flat taxers”. Facts don’t matter, just their perception of reality.
Bosch
February 26th, 2009
12:47 pm
ByteMe,
You beat me to it. Jay has dared to speak ill of their Chosen One.
PJ
February 26th, 2009
12:48 pm
Just as an aside item, I’ve just returned from the main post office here in Hapeville and asked where the tax forms were. I was told by the clerk that he was told that it was not in the budget that they supply any this year. Boy we are on a downward slope.
P.S…I’ve been to the local libraries and none of them had the 2106 form I needed. Any suggestions besides PDF.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
12:48 pm
You wouldn’t want to look up who controlled Congress in 1983, 1982, 1985, 1986, 2000, 2001, and 1999 would you?
I didn’t think so.
These next two years with a Congress slam full of Democrats and a Socialist President may be impossible to recover from if we the people don’t wake up and quick.
Brad Steal
February 26th, 2009
12:49 pm
Of course, the same Obama critics will claim that is was the magic Reagan tax cuts and completely dsicredited supply-side economics (aka economics for the gullible) that lead to the Clinton prosperity – HA!.
Once the Obama policy stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, he will wisely start hacking some of the egregious 22% of the fedral budget that is spent on the US’s world policing. Or maybe the shrill Reagan mythology task force will be succussful in keeping the farcical Star Wars program in the black.
B. Steal
Bosch
February 26th, 2009
12:49 pm
Wait a minute, this is all gonna be Carter’s fault somehow, I just know it.
ByteMe
February 26th, 2009
12:51 pm
RW: Going for that religious myth, huh? Reagan signed budgets that were pretty much similar to what he proposed each of the years he was in office. But let’s not let facts get in the way of good mythology.
Class of '98
February 26th, 2009
12:52 pm
Can you imagine if Bush said that “America invented the automobile” like Obama did Tuesday?
But of course, there’s no media bias.
Jay
February 26th, 2009
12:55 pm
Byte is correct. The annual budgets signed by Reagan were almost exactly for the amount he had originally proposed. I have gone back and checked the historical record myself. Congress and Reagan disagreed about HOW some of that money should be spent, but not on how much. Congress followed Reagan’s lead on that.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
12:55 pm
PJ,
What’s wrong with PDF? Just hit print and you should be fine.
If that doesn’t work just go to an IRS office.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
12:58 pm
Jay B and Byte,
Or Reagan went along with Congress’ lead so he could get other things done. It seems like back then people actually talked to each other before making proposals, much less passing $800,000,000.00 bills without any debate.
Mrs. Godzilla
February 26th, 2009
12:59 pm
Every time a wingnut calls Obama a socialist….another liberal is born!
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
1:00 pm
Pardon the typo. $800,000,000,000.00.
We could only wish I had been right the first time.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
1:03 pm
Every time a wingnut calls Obama a socialist….another liberal is born!
I guess we’ve found the antidote to abortion on demand.
Just today we have $634,000,000,000.00 for a down payment on socialized medicine and another $750,000,000,000.00 for the Geitner Bank and Trust. Should we call him a fiscal conservative?
PJ
February 26th, 2009
1:06 pm
Thanks RW but for some reason I Can’t download the PDF format but I will check the IRS. But my main point is what has this country come to when you can’t get basic tax forms from the main post office. Has our country sunk so low that basic services fall by the wayside. Everyone shouts about big items when sometimes it’s the small ones gives us an indication of the state we are in.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
1:06 pm
Gawd this refresh bug is aggravating.
Can we take up a collection to hire an IT person for the AJC?
Later!
ByteMe
February 26th, 2009
1:08 pm
PJ: Your library should also have them. I’ve gotten forms from there in the past, although never the more obscure ones. You might also give the IRS a call to see if they’ll mail you the forms you need. There might even be a hotline to request them by number (wouldn’t that be efficient!).
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
1:10 pm
PJ,
If you’re on your own PC you may have to download a PDF reader like Acrobat first. If you’re at work they must have those blocked, but that would seem mighty strange. You can download Adobe Acrobat here.
caz1158
February 26th, 2009
1:11 pm
For every lib born,there truly now can be an argument for abortion!!!
caz1158
February 26th, 2009
1:12 pm
Sorry that was cruel,and I brought my self down to intelligent level of a Lib!!! Please accept my apology.
G
February 26th, 2009
1:13 pm
Raygun = socialist.
The Republicans will say something like: “Well, Raygun was doing what was in the best interest of the country at the time…”, or something equally as irrational or hypocritical.
During the campaign the Republicans slammed Obama for having “socialistic” and “Marxist” tendencies and not one word was spoken about those same tendencies found in the Republican party since the early 1920’s, including their most famous Republican, Raygun. This was the model for the entire McCain campaign and for virtually every attack on Obama.
They never bother to check the opposing side of their logic and that is what makes the symmetry so fun to produce for them, as they pawn away in total silence, or retreat into personal attack mode.
Hilarious to watch unfold around here – so predictable, are they.
Phu-leez
February 26th, 2009
1:13 pm
This is not the IRS help blog. I suggest you go else where for help – almost any where but here.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 26th, 2009
1:15 pm
RW, with the PDF, you don’t get that cool news-printy stock that the library supplied tax forms were always printed on.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2009
1:16 pm
Did DB Nanny change names again?
Sorry, DB, couldn’t resist.
Now I’m really outta here. See y’all upstairs for Happy Hour.
Mr. Snarky
February 26th, 2009
1:27 pm
Jay, I always suspected Ronny was a pinko commie. Thanks for outing him.
NRB
February 26th, 2009
1:32 pm
Fine, Reagan was a socialist.
But he isnt president anymore, Obama is.
We can tax everyone at a flat 10% rate and the imperial federal government would still have enough money to do it’s constitutional duties.
If government does not have enough money with a 10% flat tax, then tough crap. Cut spending. Starting with entitlements and scams like Social Security and Medicare.
Then we can work on removing liberals from the country, by force if need be.
Mrs. Godzilla
February 26th, 2009
1:33 pm
As the old base gets shriller, more vitriolic and in some instances
bat poop crazy…..I think it’s time we all hugged a Republican.
Nice firm hug, the kind that makes George Will uncomfortable.
Paul
February 26th, 2009
1:35 pm
I gotta run, so I’ll comment more on-topic later, but a quick observation:
Hey Mrs. Godzilla!
Howya’ feelin’? Stating Jay’s thread another way, didja’ know that when you were voting for Pres Obama you were in reality voting for the philosophical son of Pres Reagan?
Midori
February 26th, 2009
1:35 pm
come here NRB and get your hug!!
Mr. Snarky
February 26th, 2009
1:36 pm
Mrs. G, you’re on your own with that one…I hope you have a shower handy.
fed up
February 26th, 2009
1:37 pm
Who really cares about what Reagan did. Let’s live in the here and now. This spending has got to stop. If any of this spending works it will be in the short term, what happens later?
Taxpayer
February 26th, 2009
1:38 pm
Mrs. Godzilla February 26th, 2009 12:59 pm Every time a wingnut calls Obama a socialist….another liberal is born!
I guess we’re making babies by the gross then.
Bosch
February 26th, 2009
1:42 pm
caz1158,
Oh, that’s okay, you were just saying what you really feel – that those who don’t think like you should have been aborted, or those who in the future may not think like you, would be better off aborted.
No, no, we understand what you meant……perfectly.
Bosch
February 26th, 2009
1:43 pm
Taxpayer,
I really like Mr. eye roll guy.
Taxpayer
February 26th, 2009
1:44 pm
Bosch,
I see you have perfected the use of the eye roll.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 26th, 2009
1:44 pm
Flat-taxers are… well, let’s just call them “special.” They’ve decided that there should never be any kind of pressure brought to bear via the tax code to effect modest behavioral changes because, well, just because!
And to that Deep Thought I must ask our NRB: what is so holy about a 10% tax rate? Does some kind of harmonic perfection occur in the universe if everyone pays that rate? Or is it, as I suspect, about what you’re willing to fork over yourself, and screw everyone who has a different opinion on the matter?
PJ
February 26th, 2009
1:44 pm
As far as socialist spending is concerned all politicians spend our money like they earned it. It just comes down to ideology who you want to do the spending. Reagan paid lip service to his constituency (the Religious Right and those who complained about the welfare state) yet he did little to nothing about the issues they were concerned with. It seems to me there was a lot of talk and no action. Republicans need to hold the people they voted for responsible for their failures not the Democrats they didn’t vote for. Just like the “Contract for American” was suppose to change how business was run in Washington (anyone remember term limits and a balanced budget) and “No New Taxes” was a campaign cry and The repeal of Roe V Wade and closing the of borders just to name a few. You voted for these people for these reasons and nothing has changed. You can blame the Democrats and say because of them none of these ant other things went through but it seems mighty funny how they seem to get through most of what they want even with opposition. When Obama, Clinton and Carter were elected no one had blinders on to what they proposed so where is all this surprise coming from. Obama said he would raise taxes on the wealthy (and we know who he considered wealthy), he said he wanted to vastly change our heath care system. he said he wanted out of Iraq, he said he wanted to do infrastructure improvements, he said he wanted to change our energy policies. That’s why he won. That’s why he is the president today. You guys act like as soon as the words and proposals fall out of his mouth if things haven’t improved immediately he a failure. Give me and him a break. We did not get where we are overnight so don’t press CTRL, ATL, DELETE just yet. Most of the things Conservatives worry about lead to the ruination of this country (tax cuts in the time of war) or trying to ram your morals and ideology down everyone’s throats caused the downfall of your party.
mntx
February 26th, 2009
1:44 pm
Two items they fail to point out, first, all spending and taxation bills originate in Congress. The President can steer and recommend, but it is congress that drafts the final budget.
Second, when weighing a ratio of spending to GDP, the big fluctuation during these years was GDP, far more than spending.
Mr. Snarky
February 26th, 2009
1:46 pm
fed up,
Ever taken Econ 101? If not, give it a try. If so, stay awake next time.
The spending stopped back in the thirties and we got the Great Depression, something the current administration is trying to avoid…hence spending. Hopefully, if private spending will bounce back in the next year or two and take up the slack when the stimulus money stops flowing.
Mrs. Godzilla
February 26th, 2009
1:46 pm
Mr. Snarky:
Protective clothing optional.
Midori
Good Girl! Big ole’ bear hug.
Taxpayer
February 26th, 2009
1:49 pm
caz, there is absolutely positively no argument for abortion. Just ask any Republican. It’s just a good thing that science and medicine have improved so much over the years because I just don’t know how some folks lived with themselves back when infant mortality rates were on up there and mere mortals could do nothing to save the little ones.
Taxpayer
February 26th, 2009
1:53 pm
DB, 10% is a time-honored tradition dating back to a time when churches could not gather enough money to literally get their congregation in out of the rain. Anyway, if we didn’t have this ridiculous separation of church and state, we could just let the church collect the tithe and fund government with it.
Redneck Convert
February 26th, 2009
2:02 pm
Well, I might of knowed Bookman would have to slam President Reagan. The only reason the budget was so high under him is because all the people that worked for him kept giving things away and he didn’t know nothing about it. Some of the people was giving away missiles to Iran and he didn’t know nothing about it. Others were giving away rifles and such to the Contras and he didn’t know nothing about that either. They was stealing him blind. Come to think of it, there sure was a lot of stuff Reagan didn’t know or couldn’t remember. A man like that, you can’t expect him to be bothered with how big the budget was. Have a good day everybody.
PJ
February 26th, 2009
2:07 pm
To: Phu-leez, who made you orator of what is discussed here. I thought this was Jay’s blog site. We all digress at one point or another, sometimes to make a point or sometimes just to help each other. If you don’t care for what is being written just skip it just like I will be skipping anything you type from now on.
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
February 26th, 2009
2:17 pm
Jay, you fail to see the nuance and, therein, lies all the difference.
Regan wanted to take money that was wasted (i.e. payments to welfare mamas with a sucker under each arm) and move it to productive puposes (tax cuts that fueled remarkable and unpredented economic growth and individual wealth) for the common good. Exogent circumstances, ending the coldwar and the mess left JEC left behind, demanded increased spending and debt.
POTUS goes far beyond that which is required by current Decomcrat induced (which see, Fannie, Freddie, & the credit crunch) crisis would reasonably to take moneys from the common good (taxcuts that would fuel economic recovery and Reagan-esque future growth) to waste it on a built in voter base (welfare mamas with a sucker under each arm and ACORN miscreants)that couldn’t tell you three things about Obama’s policies if there next welfare check and a $200 pari of Nikes depended on it.
Hillbilly Deluxe
February 26th, 2009
2:29 pm
If you’re going to cut taxes, you need to cut spending too. I don’t remember anybody doing this in my lifetime.
My 2 cents on income taxes. I’d like to see all the deductions and breaks done away with. Adjust the percentages to keep it revenue neutral. Keep the graduated tax brackets. Try that for 5 years or so and see how it goes.
DB, Gwinnettian
February 26th, 2009
2:39 pm
Mr. Deluxe @ 2.29, what you propose is at least somewhat realistic. I don’t actually have a big philosophical problem with it since the idea is to sweep it all clean and start with a fresh slate, save for one—the mortgage interest deduction.
When we last eliminated an interest deduction on personal credit, if memory serves, it was done in a five-year phase-out. One year you could deduct 100% of the interest, the next year 80%, until it went away. That was just personal credit.
A big ol’ monster deduction like home mortgage interest would need to be phased out over at least ten years, I think, to prevent what’s already a precarious market from tumbling much farther/faster than it’s bound to, still (since housing prices are, sadly, probably overvalued nationwide).