Conservative or Liberal

[Benman]

Suppose that President X serves an 8 year term, followed by President Y, who also serves an 8 year term. Suppose also that each president had complete control over budgets, including both the taxing and spending levels. At the end of each term, here's how they did:

President X:
Taxes = $100/yr
Expenditures = $100/yr
Deficit = $0

Now here comes President Y:

Taxes = $75/yr
Expenditures = $100/yr
Deficit = $200 (after 8 years)

Question: Was President Y more "conservative" than President X, or was he more "liberal."

[squeek12]

I choose president z who taxes $50/year and spends $50/year.

[coffeecrazy1]

I think this example defies those terms.

Reason: you can be either one and do either type of thing.

Example: President X could easily be President Bush with the balanced budget amendment, but President Y could easily be President Reagan, running the deficit through the roof. Both were/are conservative. See also President Clinton and the economic prosperity during his tenure, and President Carter and the recession during his...both are liberal.

[squeek12]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this example defies those terms.

Reason: you can be either one and do either type of thing.

Example: President X could easily be President Bush with the balanced budget amendment, but President Y could easily be President Reagan, running the deficit through the roof. Both were/are conservative. See also President Clinton and the economic prosperity during his tenure, and President Carter and the recession during his...both are liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as the quarterback of a football team gets too much credit for the team's wins and losses, so does the president for economic prosperity or despair.

[Benman]

Congratulations!! You've just been elected "President Z." And true to your campaign pledge, your first act in office is to lower taxes to $50 and lower spending to $50.

You're feeling pretty good about yourself. After all, you've cut the size of government in half, lowered taxes, and the economy is humming along nicely. So far so good.

But, towards the end of your first term you draw an opponent in the upcoming primary, Candidate C. Candidate C's platform is as follows:

"President Z isn't so great. Sure, he was better than Presidents X and Y, but he didn't go nearly far enough. If I'm elected, I'll lower taxes and spending to $25 per year. So, President Z, when you really look at him closely, is nothing but a no-good LIBERAL."

Once you've recovered from the shock of being called a liberal, you begin to craft your response to that allegation. Whic of the following will it be:

1) He's right. I am a liberal. The current status quo is $50/$50, and there's no other way to characterize me relative to someone that wants to cut that in half than as a LIBERAL. Maybe the Democrats need a candidate. I'll call them up. Or;

2) He's wrong, I'm not a LIBERAL. When I proposed a $50 spending and tax rate, I carefully considered precisely how small the government could be and still provide the minimum of services even the most conservative of conservatives would insist on: national defense, a minimum of infrastructure, and a decent court system to protect private property rights. Had I thought that even $1 less a year was feasible, then that's what I would have proposed. No sir, I'm as conservative as you can possibly be and still be responsible. Everyone to the "right" of me is just wacko.

Which choice best describes your response?

eh, yes and no. Picking Greenspan and then keeping him as the head of the Fed has done a ton for our economy. The earned income tax credit probably did more to help the economy during the 1990s than anything else, and that was carefully crafted by Clinton.

But the economy is certainly cyclic, and a lot of that is beyond the presidents' control.

[coffeecrazy1]

I think the point I was making was that the entire question is a bit shaky because of these issues that you guys just mentioned.

[FishHooks]

One rare time where I agree with you.

[Benman]

coffeecrazy, I am just hoping to isolate the conservative/not so conservative nature of tax cuts by themselves, which therefore cause a deficit. Balancing budgets used to be the domain of conservatives, and busting budgets was perceived as the domain of liberals. So, do naked tax cuts make you more or less conservatve than a predesessor that admitedly taxed more than you did, but had a balanced budget.

Of course in my hypothetical I'm putting all the power in the hands of the president, and I should have positied a non-cyclical ecomony as well. These things will never happen, of course, but I think it's a useful question.

[ QUOTE ]
coffeecrazy, I am just hoping to isolate the conservative/not so conservative nature of tax cuts by themselves, which therefore cause a deficit. Balancing budgets used to be the domain of conservatives, and busting budgets was perceived as the domain of liberals. So, do naked tax cuts make you more or less conservatve than a predesessor that admitedly taxed more than you did, but had a balanced budget.

Of course in my hypothetical I'm putting all the power in the hands of the president, and I should have positied a non-cyclical ecomony as well. These things will never happen, of course, but I think it's a useful question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if balancing the budget or busting the budget is the kind of thing that can be liberal or conservative. All sensible conservatives and liberals want to balance the budget. In an ideal conservative world, taxes and spending would be lower than in an ideal liberal world. I think GW Bush would defend his efforts over the last 5 years to totally bust the budget as a more long term kinda thing-- bankrupting social security and other programs will eventually cause the government to slash spending. I don't think he would call his tax cut liberal. Yet sensible republicans like John McCain have pointed out the problems with this strategy.