31.5.07

Irony

You know what really is ironic?

Reagan wanted to make government smaller and more efficient (and W has said things like this too, but has taken little action).

But by cutting budgets and taking other steps to make government smaller and more 'efficient' he actually just made government more inefficient.

See, when Reagan cut budgets and attempted to rid the country of the Department of Education and Energy, all he did was piss off and scare bureaucrats in all agencies. This lowed productivity and outputs of these government agencies - creating a more inefficient government.

That, my firends, is ironic.

The 80s were sort of a waste weren't they? Or are we just going to blame the 70s for that too?

4 comments:

Alles said...

I find it ironic that FDR is credited with saving us from the Great Depression, yet in 1938 (5 years into his presidency), unemployment rose to 19.0% and real GDP fell 3.5% (only 1.7% ahead of 1929 levels). Of course you could always blame that on the 1920s.

He also gave away Eastern Europe to the Soviets. Good president, that FDR.

Otter said...

I think FDR gave the country hope more than anything else. FDR probably did more to save capitalism in this country more than anyone else (and, btw, unemployment was arond 25% when he took office). His programs had limited success and it took WWII to pull this country (and the world) out of the Depression.

As far as giving away Eastern Europe... it's hard to control something that the other side already controls. No way the Soviets were going to pull their troops back to Poland or Ukraine after already taking them back from the Nazis. He did give up at Yalta, if that's what you're talking about (dividing Berlin for instance), but by Jan. 1945 it was just a rush to see where the Soviets and US would meet.

Alles said...

It's funny how things were more complicated than I made them seem...

I think it's safe to say that there won't be a chapter in any of Reagan's biographies that discusses the "change in efficiency" at the ED or DoE, so I think it's probably a little ridiculous to define his legacy that way. It's like remembering George Washington solely for his performance in the French and Indian War.

Facts said...

You forgot to use me in your Reagan post.