Let's talk "Reagan Republican", okay?

Okay, I’ll take the sarcasm in the last post for exactly what its worth. I simply get SO frigging frustrated when I get the very frequent impression that you don’t listen to (or read) anything I have to say.

I, however, DO read what you say. I can’t help but notice that when you discuss topics like terrorism, economics, fiscal spending and immigration, you… and nearly every major conservative pundit on the radio today… keep “harking” back to the Reagan administration with weepy-eyed nostalgia. I want to know why this is.

As we have all seen from the posts concerning our original “Presidential Report Cards”, even I… an admitted Reagan skeptic from as far back as 1980 (Jambo will back me up here!)… gave him the highest grade of all the Presidents we studied. I’m not going to listen to any crap about my “liberal” tendencies tainting my opinion here, as there is NO basis for this fear in reality. I am perfectly able to objectively look at the historical facts concerning Reagan and his time in office. I am questioning that ability in those who so frequently rap themselves up in the mantle of “Reagan-ism”.

In the post “Let’s play a game II” the premise was to find real, measurable faults with the policies and programs of the Reagan Administration. I listed 3 of them (with help from James on the last), but got no response other than flippant humor from Ryan. So, now I will ask, from any conservative Republican that might be reading this blog today, to explain why the label “Reagan” in front of words like “conservative” or “Republican” should mean anything to the very issues we are discussing here in 2008?

For example: Ryan wrote: “…if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endorsement for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Reagan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels.”

I take this to mean that the harder, more isolationist position McCain is now endorsing is closer to the Reagan position, correct? Reagan would have “secured the border” from further illegal entry, denied amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the country, forced deportation on those found guilty of entering illegally? Of course, this is assuming (hypothetically speaking, of course) that he were President NOW.

Well, if we are going to make assumptions on what Reagan would do NOW, let’s look at what he did THEN, and compare, okay?

November, 1986. Ronald Reagan signs into Law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act {Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359}), which, for those that don’t know already, granted AMNESTY to as many as 5,689,000 documented illegal immigrants in the United States. This same IRCA 1986 also mandated the REDUCTION of BP and INS personnel of as much as 11% in the 10 years following its becoming law (this facet of the law was struck down by Bush Sr. in 1991, by the way, and he was criticized by the “conservatives” in the party for doing it!). Critics of this Act have noted that Reagan’s signing of this legislation cemented the “amnesty” precedent into the lawmaker’s mind, and that in the 20 years that followed the amnesty, the number of illegals in this country has risen from nearly 6 million to (possibly) as high as 21 million… a 350% increase. Impressive, aint it?

Another example? Okay, let’s talk free trade. Republican candidates, one and all, call for an end to NAFTA and CAFTA as failed programs… none more vocally than Paul, but Romney and McCain have also called for an end to both agreements, and Huckabee is simply too ignorant to discuss it.

So, if NAFTA/CAFTA is such a bad thing, why did Reagan fight for 8 years as President to get it implemented?

That’s right, all you “Reagan-ites” out there, Big Ron was espousing the wonders of free trade as early as his 1st Inaugural Address in Jan. of 1981. He initiated NAFTA with the US/Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 1985, and looked for the inclusion of Mexico into the agreement eventually.

Let’s talk spending. The GOP candidates want to cut taxes and reduce spending… just like Reagan did. Smaller government is better government… and I believe that. I DO! Reagan didn’t, though…

Reagan cut taxes at a time in America when inflation was higher than it had been since 1947, unemployment was more than 11%, and the entire economy was as stagnant as it had ever been. All well and good, and it DID stimulate the economy over the next four years. However, he did NOT reduce the size of government even one IOTA. The cuts he made to social programs and education didn’t even make a dent in the increased cost of defense over the same time period. On average, the Federal Budget under Reagan called for 18% MORE money ever year he was in office (that’s AVERAGE, mind you… not every year literally). “Trickle-down” economics resulted directly in the market crash of ‘87, and that crash had an awful lot to do with Bush Sr. having to raise taxes and LOSE the ‘92 election. Show me ONE example of Reagan reducing either the SIZE or COST of government, even for ONE YEAR of his administration. Don’t bother, you can’t because he DIDN’T! AND Reagan wasn’t a “war time” President like Bush Jr. and the next guy will be, either.

I will leave my comments on terrorism as they stand in the previous posts… I’m too tired to retype them here.

So, tell me that Reagan wasn’t soft on Iran specifically, terrorism in general, illegal immigration and amnesty, big government deficit spending, NAFTA, et al. Explain to me how Romney, Huckabee, Paul or any other conservative out there can call themselves “Reagan-like” in their positions when the historical facts show me that the exact opposite is true?