Coonsey at TPM: Reagan and Bush Spent Money and Tripled our Debt? Surely Not!

Anybody remember President Ronald Reagan's water treatment spending bill in 1987?  It kind of reminds me of President Obama's stimulus Recovery and Reinvestment bill.

President Reagan, in a dramatic shift aimed at compromise with a Congress already preparing to defy him on the issue, is doubling his proposal for Federal spending on water treatment facilities, Administration officials said today.

The President will propose that $12 billion be spent over eight years on Federal grants and loans under the Clean Water Act to help communities build sewage treatment facilities, Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in confirming the reports of other sources. In his previous budget the President asked for $6 billion for the clean water program.

Congress unanimously voted in October for legislation to provide $18 billion for sewage treatment facilities.

Just like Obama, Reagan wanted to SPEND money to help communities build sewage treatment facilities (infrastructure).  He and Congress fought over the specifics but were finally able to agree on a bill.  Even Reagan knew that fixing infrastructure needed money to happen.

Another report on Reagan says,

Both in his campaign and in his early presidential speeches, Reagan had promised not only to reduce taxes and cut spending, but to balance the federal budget. He never did. Instead, his policies contributed to the largest budget deficits in American history and a tripling of the national debt during his eight years in office. Indeed, one of Reagan's most important legacies was his contribution to an enduring fiscal crisis. He helped create a federal budget that was structurally, and radically, unbalanced; and he launched an era in which the national debt grew steadily and dramatically for many years.

There was also this report in 2005 about President Bush's budget spending:

Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).

What makes this all the more frustrating is that Bush, unlike Reagan and Clinton, faces a Congress that is controlled by his own party, which claims to be dedicated to smaller, more efficient government. Yet Bush has shown no leadership on spending reform--and Republicans have rebuffed even the mildest criticisms of their spendthrift ways. It seems incontestable that we should conclude that the country's purse is worse off when Republicans are in power.

So when do Americans start throwing a fit about spending?  When did the tea parties start?  In the first three months of the Obama administration....skipping over the past 30.

If you people doing the complaining had been complaining before the Obama administration, more folks might have paid attention to you.  It's obvious what you are doing -- it's about hurting the Obama administration, plain and simple.