Can You Guess Who?

I got this idea from a member of the BlogsforVictory Google Group.  I’ve redacted details that would give the answer away.

WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT spiraling out of control, many Americans sense an urgent need to find a political leader who is able to say “no” to spending. Yet they fear that finding such a leader is impossible. Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is [redacted]. President from [redacted], [Redacted] sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was [redacted] penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, [redacted] was the Great Refrainer.
Following [redacted], the federal debt stood ten times higher than before the [redacted], and it was widely understood that the debt burden would become unbearable if interest rates rose. At the same time, the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, veterans were having trouble finding work, prices had risen while wages lagged, and workers in Seattle, New York, and Boston were talking revolution and taking to the streets. The [redacted] administration had nationalized the railroads for a time at the end of the [redacted], and had encouraged stock exchanges to shut down for a time, and Progressives were now pushing for state or even federal control of water power and electricity. The business outlook was grim, and one of the biggest underlying problems was the lack of an orderly budgeting process: Congress brought proposals to the White House willy-nilly, and they were customarily approved.

The Republican Party’s response in the [redacted] election was to campaign for smaller government and for a return to what its presidential candidate, [redacted], dubbed “normalcy”—a curtailing of government interference in the economy to create a predictable environment in which business could confidently operate. [Redacted], a Massachusetts governor who had gained a national reputation by facing down a Boston police strike—“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time,” he had declared—was chosen to be [redacted] running mate. And following their victory, [redacted] inaugural address set a different tone from that of the outgoing [redacted] administration (and from that of the Obama administration today): “No altered system,” [redacted] said, “will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.”

One of [redacted] first steps was to shepherd through Congress the Budget and Accounting Act of [redacted], under which the executive branch gained authority over and took responsibility for the budget, even to the point of being able to impound money after it was budgeted. This legislation also gave the executive branch a special budget bureau—the forerunner to today’s Office of Management and Budget—over which [redacted] named a flamboyant Brigadier General, [redacted], as director. Together they proceeded to summon department staff and their bosses to semiannual meetings at Continental Hall, where [redacted] cajoled and shamed them into making spending cuts. In addition, [redacted] pushed through a tax cut, lowering the top rate to 58 percent; and in a move toward privatization, he proposed to sell off naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming to private companies.

Is there any doubt that history repeats itself?  Read the whole piece here, and pray that another [redacted] comes along soon.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Can You Guess Who?

  1. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 8, 2013 / 1:43 pm

    “President [redacted] hacked away at the Federal Budget”; and offered incentives in the form of praise to those who likewise found ways to trim their budgets. Under [redacted] the federal debt fell, the top income tax halved from 50% to 25&, and under [redacted] America saw growth and opportunity.

    IMO, a man or woman like [redacted] would be hard pressed to get elected today because he was clear from the beginning that frivolous spending had to stop, no more freebies, no more lobbying for special interests … well … they lobbied unsuccessfully. But, once in office he was handily re-elected and praised for his disciplined single-minded ability to say no to new spending.

    How will we recognize this generations [redacted] and how can we package such a person to get elected by the Lo-Fo voters and American Idol obsessed public?

    • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 1:51 pm

      why do we keep referring to our elected representatives (public SERVANTS) as “leaders”?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 8, 2013 / 1:59 pm

        Because they should lead neo.

        A republic like ours requires that the populace remain informed and engaged, BUT we elect representatives to go to our capital and represent our needs, wants and desires. BUT they must also lead by making decisions that are in our best interest even if we all disagree with some of these decisions.

        Our Representatives are supposed to lead rather than follow to prevent what Jefferson called the Tyranny of the Majority.

        Their leadership allows us to get on with the business of living while they protect our interests and our way of life.

    • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 1:53 pm

      collapse, END of entitlements…start over. Or civil war.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 8, 2013 / 1:55 pm

      How will we recognize this generations [redacted] and how can we package such a person to get elected by the Lo-Fo voters and American Idol obsessed public?

      Only after an economic collapse, a collapse that Obama is engineering as we speak. Talk about being hoisted with one’s own petard. Poetic justice, indeed.

      BTW, “L0-FO voters” — I love it!

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 2:05 pm

        BTW, “L0-FO voters” — I love it!

        racist……. LOL

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 2:07 pm

        does that mean we have a Lo-Fo in the white hut?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 8, 2013 / 2:15 pm

        JR,

        I guess I’m a half-empty kind of guy but no society I’m aware of has ever been starved into capitalism. They usually go the other way.

        Collapse means the people look to the very government that caused the collapse to fix the collapse.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 8, 2013 / 3:24 pm

        Collapse means the people look to the very government that caused the collapse to fix the collapse.

        That’s largely what happened during the Great Depression, but you didn’t have an entitlement class back then that burned and looted when things didn’t go right.

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 4:38 pm

        but you didn’t have an entitlement class back then that burned and looted when things didn’t go right.

        the counts Lo-Fo’s?

      • Retired Spook March 8, 2013 / 5:58 pm

        I guess I’m a half-empty kind of guy but no society I’m aware of has ever been starved into capitalism. They usually go the other way.

        I would submit that most, if not all of the former Soviet block was starved into capitalism. Russia seems to have fallen off the wagon, so to speak, after a brief sojourn into economic liberty, but most of the former Soviet satellites have capitalist economies, and most starved under Soviet tyranny.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 8, 2013 / 6:15 pm

        Far be it from me to challenge your wisdom and accuracy my dear Spook.

        I would only point out that liberalization began in the former Soviet Union 1985 and as the Soviet Republics began to feel the strength from that political and economic liberalization (along with a sudden resurgence in nationalism after years of the forced Russianization of the USSR) the satellite countries began their break in 1989, most peacefully.

        They had their taste of freedom, economic and social, and saw the advantage of more.

        Even Hungary, after throwing off Soviet communism began a new era of “Goulash Communism” until the liberalization and new freedoms started them on the long march to market based economies.

        Just my observations.

      • Retired Spook March 8, 2013 / 9:43 pm

        Just my observations.

        And interesting observations they are. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

  2. tiredoflibbs March 8, 2013 / 2:55 pm

    We all know that the proggy moochers and looters will do everything and anything in their power to keep a candidate like [redacted] from even being considered the nominee.

    Votes are starting to get very, very expensive and we have individuals who will sell their votes and politicians who will pay anything (in other people’s money, of course) to purchase them.

    • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 4:52 pm

      the real Lo -Fo’s

      ‘I Just Voted for Obama Because He’s Black’

      It’s not hard to understand how people like Nancy Pelosi (we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it), Sheila Jackson Lee (“I stand here as a freed slave because this Congress came together”), Maxine Waters (170 million jobs could be lost due to Sequestration), and Hank “Guam Will Tip Over” Johnson get re-elected even after they say stupid things. In fact, I think their vote totals increase every time they add to their repertoire of absurdities.

      Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/i-just-voted-for-obama-because-hes-black/#ixzz2Mz2suiMk

      scroll down and watch the video.

Comments are closed.