Reagan More Socialist Than FDR from Open Left - Front Page

http://www.openleft.com/diary/13109/reagan-more-socialist-than-fdr

As I have tried to reveal in several articles this month, the "fiscal conservative" philosophy to which Republicans, and many Democrats, claim to adhere is a complete fabrication. Over the last 140 years, no politician or political party has ever actually reduced the size of government spending relative to the overall size of the economy in any significant, long-term way. During this entire period, excepting for the end of the two world wars, government spending has consistently increased relative to the overall size of the economy. It has happened to such a degree that even fiscal conservative icons such as Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Tom DeLay advocated for a much larger government than either FDR or LBJ. To phrase this historic trend in the current lingo of conservatives, Ronald Reagan was far more "socialist" than FDR.

It is fairly simple to prove that Regan was ore "socialist" than the New Deal or Great Society, if the size of government spending relative to the overall size of the economy is examined. The following chart graphs the percentage of government spending relative to the overall size of the economy during the peak era of Republican political power: fiscal year 1982 (Reagan's first budget) through fiscal year 2007 (the final budget passed when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House).

This chart is even taken from a pro-teabagging site. It shows that government spending was 36.30% the total size of the economy in 1982, and ended up at 35.53% in 2007. This minuscule change of less than 1% is the entire "limited government" accomplishment of fiscal conservatism. Further, the variation of government spending relative to the overall economy is also quite narrow, with no changes in either direction of more than 4.12% during the entire period. Overall, these levels of spending are also far beyond the level of government spending undertaken during the peak years of Democratic political power, fiscal year 1934 (FDR's first budget) to fiscal year 1969 (the final pre-Nixon year of Democratic control of the White House and Congress):

According to this chart, outside of World War Two, government spending under FDR and LBJ reached an all-time high of 30.07% in 1969. This compares to an all-time low of 32.55% under Reagan. As such, by their own standards, conservatives must label Ronald Reagan as more socialist than FDR, he of the New Deal, or LBJ, he of The Great Society. Under FDR, government spending consistently hovered at around 20% of GDP, compared to 35% under Reagan. This actually makes Reagan nearly twice as socialist as FDR.

Some Republicans believe they can regain power by distancing themselves from the Bush years, and "returning" to a clear, populist articulation of a "limited government" philosophy. The problem with such an idea is that there is no actual example of this "limited government" philosophy in practice. No politician or political party has ever significantly reduced the size of government over the long-term. Because of this, pretty much all self-identified "fiscal conservatives" are either lying about, or entirely ignorant of, the size of government they actually support.