This is a column by Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer and radio host, friend to Rush and Hannity and Ann Coulter, in which he contrasts Reagan's record and Bush's record. This coulumn is a response to another republican, I can't remembe exactly who, who believes that Bush is more conservative than reagan. I found this column at Hugh Huwitt's website.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/ronald-reagan-george-w-bush/10150109191410946
From the article:
My friend Pete Wehner took my criticism of President George W. Bush and some of his most senior staff as a challenge to compare Bush to President Ronald Reagan. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/17/answering-mark-levins-challenge/ Comparing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is like comparing Margaret Thatcher and John Major. That's not to put down Bush or Major, both of whom were fine leaders, but they were not the historical figures their former staffers and supporters insist.
What Reagan did do in trying to cut federal spending is veto spending bills. In fact, I can recall two occasions when the federal government was shutdown, albeit for short periods, over his spending (and policy) disagreements with Congress in 1981 and 1984. There were no shutdowns under Bush. Reagan issued a total of 78 vetoes, Bush only 12. Bush was, I believe, too timid in this regard. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/Bush-Vetos.htm Reagan was much more fierce in his desire to contain spending. And he wasn't worried about a "new tone," either.
When Reagan entered office after the disastrous Jimmy Carter years, inflation was about 12%; mortgage interest rates averaged, on traditional loans, as high as 16%; unemployment was 7.5% and rising fast; oil and gas prices were through the roof at the time; and America was headed for a historically difficult recession. Respectfully, Bush came to office in a far better economic climate left by a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton, although it is likely the economy was experiencing the beginning of a recession.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/ronald-reagan-george-w-bush/10150109191410946
From the article:
My friend Pete Wehner took my criticism of President George W. Bush and some of his most senior staff as a challenge to compare Bush to President Ronald Reagan. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/17/answering-mark-levins-challenge/ Comparing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is like comparing Margaret Thatcher and John Major. That's not to put down Bush or Major, both of whom were fine leaders, but they were not the historical figures their former staffers and supporters insist.
What Reagan did do in trying to cut federal spending is veto spending bills. In fact, I can recall two occasions when the federal government was shutdown, albeit for short periods, over his spending (and policy) disagreements with Congress in 1981 and 1984. There were no shutdowns under Bush. Reagan issued a total of 78 vetoes, Bush only 12. Bush was, I believe, too timid in this regard. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/Bush-Vetos.htm Reagan was much more fierce in his desire to contain spending. And he wasn't worried about a "new tone," either.
When Reagan entered office after the disastrous Jimmy Carter years, inflation was about 12%; mortgage interest rates averaged, on traditional loans, as high as 16%; unemployment was 7.5% and rising fast; oil and gas prices were through the roof at the time; and America was headed for a historically difficult recession. Respectfully, Bush came to office in a far better economic climate left by a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton, although it is likely the economy was experiencing the beginning of a recession.
