Conservatives Mourn White House's `Abandoning' Reagan Legacy
By Matthew Benjamin and Rich Miller
Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The heirs to the Reagan revolution
say the free-market principles that have held sway for almost
three decades in the U.S. are being undermined. And many of
them blame the Bush White House.
This week's announcement that the Treasury will buy equity
stakes in nine banks for $125 billion capped a month of the
deepest government intervention in the economy in seven
decades. More is likely to come, as lawmakers extend oversight
of financial institutions and other industries.
``The future of the free-market movement and limited-
government cause is in jeopardy,'' said Pat Toomey, president
of the Club for Growth, a Washington-based group that pushes
for lower taxes and less government.
Libertarians, supply-siders and tax-cut advocates differ
on the degree of danger they say the latest measures pose to
the nation's economy. The views range from the apocalyptic --
that the U.S. faces an extended period of socialism -- to
resignation about the return of big government and hope that
voters will soon tire of it.
They agree, though, that the Bush administration is the
main culprit for the betrayal of President Ronald Reagan's
philosophy, which has underpinned the Republican Party for a
generation.
``It was brought about by George W. Bush abandoning any
kind of Republican principles,'' said William Niskanen,
chairman emeritus of the Cato Institute, a libertarian
Washington research group.
A Coffin on Reagan
Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, last
month said Bush's $700 billion rescue of the financial markets
would ``put a coffin on top of the coffin of Ronald Reagan.''
To be sure, Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have
publicly bemoaned the latest moves, calling them contrary to
their own economic philosophies even while arguing that they
were necessary.
``I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural
instinct is to oppose government intervention,'' Bush said in a
nationwide television address on Sept. 24. ``Under normal
circumstances, I would have followed this course,'' he said.
``But these are not normal circumstances.''
Representative John Campbell, another California
Republican, defended the administration's plan, saying any
president would make similar decisions under the circumstances.
``I'm not sure what else could be done,'' said Campbell, a
member of a conservative House faction known as the Republican
Study Committee. ``These are practical decisions about what is
the best way to fix the credit and liquidity crisis.''
``Tax cuts are not going to fix this.''
Before the Bailout
Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said: ``No one has fought
harder and defended economic freedom more than President Bush.
Period. What our friends need to understand is that a collapsed
market isn't a free market. It's an invitation to those who
oppose economic freedom to push for actual government control,
not the rescue we're implementing.''
Still, Bush's Republican critics say the president was
pushing for a bigger government role long before the rescue.
They point to moves ranging from the $168 billion stimulus plan
the administration negotiated with Democrats in February, to
the 2003 Medicare prescription-drug program, which is expected
to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.
Bush inherited a surplus, yet his budgets have resulted in
deficits and have added $1.7 trillion to the national debt.
``He's governed more as Nixon,'' who imposed wage-and-
price controls and spent billions of dollars on war and social
programs, said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax
Reform. Norquist, who has said his goal is to get government
``down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub,'' said
he ``long ago stopped being disappointed by Bush.''
Inescapable Irony
While most Republicans in the House opposed the bailout, a
majority of Republican senators favored it, as did the party's
leadership in both chambers.
``The irony hasn't escaped most of us,'' said
Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who voted
against the rescue package. ``We've preached the gospel of free
markets forever, and to throw it aside that quickly?''
Some conservatives say even when Bush is gone, his
entanglement of the government with private industry will be
hard to undo.
``Government ownership, once in place, will not be so easy
to disestablish,'' said Alvin Rabushka, who served on Reagan's
Tax Policy Task Force, which helped lay the groundwork for
efforts to slow the growth of government spending, lower
marginal tax rates and deregulate the economy.
`A New Era'
``A new era of democratic socialism has begun in the
U.S.,'' said Rabushka, now a senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution in Stanford, California. ``The new order will last
a decade or two until the public clamors for a restoration of
private sector allocation of money and credit.''
In the near term, Democratic lawmakers will begin weighing
broad new regulation of financial markets when Congress
reconvenes, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney
Frank said in an interview last month.
Democrats are expected to increase their majorities in
both houses of Congress in the November election. And Democrat
Barack Obama continues to widen his lead over Republican John
McCain in the presidential race.
``The pressure will be against free markets for a while,''
said Gary Becker, a University of Chicago professor who won the
1992 Nobel Prize for economics. We may see ``more helping out
companies when they get into trouble, more anti-free trade, and
those would be dangerous,'' said Becker.
Free markets and limited government will eventually
prevail, the Club for Growth's Toomey says, yet it may take a
while. ``From a regulatory point of view, the 1930s were a
disaster, and they didn't end until the 1980s. That's the
danger.''
To contact the reporters on this story:
Matthew Benjamin in Washington at
mbenjamin2@bloomberg.net
;
Rich Miller in Washington at
rmiller28@bloomberg.net
.
Last Updated: October 15, 2008 00:01 EDT