robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (07/24/84)
> > **************** > That the federal deficits so much deplored by Gov. Cuomo were built > while Tip O'Neil and his redistributionist House Democrats remained > in control of the nation's purse strings. That deficits didn't > become an issue with Democrats until Ronald Reagan and a rebellious > public began to deny the government further tax increases. > **************** > > Interesting views of the deficits, that. According to a chart published > a few months ago in TIME, every one of Reagan's budgets has had a deficit > more than three times the previous record deficit, whereas every one of > Carter's deficits was less than the preceding year's deficit (including > the deficit bequeathed by his predecessor). > > It's really amazing how Reagan apologists keep trying to accuse the > Democrats of causing the deficits, when the deficits were being reduced > during the period the Dems had the White House and both Houses of Congress > but leaped upward as soon as Reagan had control. > > Maybe you think Canadians have no business commenting on such matters > of "internal" US politics -- but although we can't vote, your misgovernment > hurts us probably more than it hurts you. > > "No taxation without representation!" But how do we secede? > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt For a Canadian to accuse the Reagan administration of "misgovernment" (with regards to the deficit) seems to me to be somewhat hypocritical. The Canadian deficit is about $30 billion of a total budget of about $60 billion ( all figures are + or - a few $billion and are in Canadian "dollars"). Also when you take into account the fact that the population of Canada is only 25 million, I think it becomes obvious who has been doing the misgoverning. Rather than blame RR are the Republicans for the poor state of affairs of the Canadian economy ( and I do concede the fact that the US is mainly responsible for the high interest rates experienced here), it is necessary to look no further than to Ottawa to find the real culprits. Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau not only had no understanding of economics, but also lacked the sense to recognise this shortcoming of his, and take some constructive steps like delegating all economic responsibilities to the Finance Minister. (I seem to remember reading somewhere that the average Finance Minister's tenure was 30 months during the Trudeau years - considering that Trudeau governed for almost 16 consecutive years I think this says something) P.S. Remember back in '72 when $1 CDN was worth $1.04 US, instead $0.75 today? J.B. Robinson
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (07/24/84)
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that blaming Trudeau for whatever ills are perceived in the Canadian economy is too simple. The same applies probably for Reagan and the USA. (I say this even though I very much object to some of reagan's policies.) Governments invariably discover that their freedom of action is much more severely resticted than they would like, and they are bound by what the general population will tolerate. The Canadian population has become used to a level of affluence which cannot be sustained indefinitely. There are strong forces (business among them) which act to blind people to the elementary facts of global economics for a steady-state world. If the government is going to substatially reduce the deficits that have been run up, and avoid future repetitions, Canadians (that means US too) will have to accept a reduced standard of living. Since some people in canada are already on rather low incomes, the impacts should fall primarily on those who are above-average in wealth, -- I note that computer people generally aren't doing too badly at present.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/26/84)
****************** > Maybe you think Canadians have no business commenting on such matters > of "internal" US politics -- but although we can't vote, your misgovernment > hurts us probably more than it hurts you. > For a Canadian to accuse the Reagan administration of "misgovernment" (with regards to the deficit) seems to me to be somewhat hypocritical. The Canadian deficit is about $30 billion of a total budget of about $60 billion ( all figures are + or - a few $billion and are in Canadian "dollars"). Also when you take into account the fact that the population of Canada is only 25 million, I think it becomes obvious who has been doing the misgoverning. ****************** After I posted the original of this, I wished that I had added that US misgoverment hurts us more than does misgovernment from Ottawa, because that is the real reason why Canadians take more interest in US politics than in Canadian Federal politics. In my view, the main misgovernment in Ottawa has had to do with over-control by the accountants and comptrollers as opposed to the workers in the civil service, and with policies directed at aping Reaganomics without seeming to do so. The first factor depletes the civil service of imaginative and resourceful people who COULD give good advice; the second is probably the result. You should also note that I did not claim that Reagan's deficits were a sign of misgovernment. My point was that Canadians are highly susceptible to what goes on in the USA, but have no voice. The first part of the note was simply a statement of fact, fact that Reagan apologists conveniently forget: the deficits are HIS and not due to the Democrats. It could be argued that deficits as such are irrelevant to the quality of the government. Deficits in a good cause may be highly desirable; unpredicted and unwanted deficits probably are not (and remember that Reagan neither expected nor wanted deficits to last so long into his term. He even supported the idea of a Constitutional amendment to prohibit them. I guess that might suggest a leetle misgoverment, mightn't it?) From the "morning smile" in today's Globe and Mail (from memory): It's a pity that all the people who really know how the country should be governed are driving taxis, cutting hair, or waiting on tables. (And writing to Usenet). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/26/84)
Just one small correction to Martin's article. The House of Representatives, democratically controled for over twenty years, is the place where the final budget is decided. IF the democrats were so all fired, dead-set against deficit spending, they had every chance in the world to change the fact. Instead, they managed to load the budget with all kinds of schemes and spending items so that the true budget proposed by Reagan was inflated just to please themselves. Then they had the gall to point to the White House as the reason for the deficits. The Democrat controlled House divinely believes in the old Machiavllian tenet that "If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it." That is just what has been happening concerning the budget and deficits in the US. I am sorry that I cannot speak about Canada's problems, but I do realize that many of the things that happen in the US concerning economic questions have a bearing on Canadian economics. I wish it weren't so. T. C. Wheeler
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/31/84)
T.C.Wheeler says:
************
Just one small correction to Martin's article. The House of
Representatives, democratically controled for over twenty years,
is the place where the final budget is decided. IF the
democrats were so all fired, dead-set against deficit spending,
they had every chance in the world to change the fact. Instead,
they managed to load the budget with all kinds of schemes and
spending items so that the true budget proposed by Reagan was
inflated just to please themselves. Then they had the gall to
point to the White House as the reason for the deficits.
************
So the reason that the Carter deficits declined from those of the
previous Republican Administration was a Democratic plot to
make the next Republican Administration look bad? Interesting theory,
that. But they could have done it without tripling the previous
record deficit, if all they wanted was to make Reagan look bad!!
I suspect that the tenant of the White House might have had
just a leetle bit to do with it ... No? Oh well, logic never
gets one very far on this net.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt