Money talks, history corrects

As our country looks for answers to wars on two fronts, an economy flinging mud in a ditch and an important primary election nearing our doorstep, it's easier to embrace sound bytes and think those stupid political signs dotting the landscape tell us everything we need to know to be informed voters.

It's harder to acquire knowledge and to accept that maybe we don't know as much as we thought we did.

This newspaper has been pushing the concept of improved civic literacy for several months now, and at the risk of cramming it down readers' already clogged throats, here's a little more. We think it's healthy to reconsider what you thought you already knew by looking at it under the bright lights of historical perspective. In that way, we hope, our communities, our county, our state and our nation can confront problems more effectively and make decisions as electors more intelligently.

Most readers remember that President Jimmy Carter served just one term. He is regarded by many as a failure as our country's chief executive, a conclusion emphasized by his loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980 by a whopping 8 million votes. Reagan took every state but four, and he did it largely by making Americans feel good about themselves after energy crises and economic difficulties pock-marked the Carter years. Reagan then built his legacy over the next eight years and is regarded, even revered, as one of our nation's pillars of fiscal strength.

But what does history say?

Under Carter, the federal deficit averaged $54.5 billion a year. In the Reagan years the deficit swelled to an average of $210.6 billion annually. Overall federal spending soared from $590.9 billion in 1980 to $1.14 trillion in 1989. And President Reagan's promise to slice and dice the federal government? It grew by 5 percent during his two terms.

We point this out not to disparage a man who deserves credit for inspiring millions of Americans. But through the cold analysis of unadulterated history, we suggest that there really is no substitute for spending less than you make and saving the rest. That's as true with local, state and federal government as it is with your household.

When you vote, cast your ballot for those who have proven themselves fiscally sound, not those who merely sound fiscally responsible.