Van Buren vs. Reagan and Bush

I thought a historical example of the folly of the liberal argument that the budget is all that matters for the economy would be interesting.

It is inconsistent that liberal historians rate President Martin Van Buren relatively poorly, considering that he balanced the budget during a depression, the Panic of 1837. They fault The Little Magician for not having done more, even though there was nothing more he could have or should have done. But if liberals believe that Ronald Reagan's or George W. Bush’s deficit-spending was harmful to the economy, as if the budget is the same as the economy, they ought to hail Van Buren as among the greatest presidents, regardless of the condition of the economy. In other words, if Reagan and Bush were bad for the economy because they were bad for the budget, even though the economy was in prosperity during their administrations, then Van Buren must have been good for the economy because he was good for the budget, even though the economy was in depression. Indeed, the fact that the Panic of 1837 did not end, despite Old Kinderhook’s fiscal restraint, suggests that fiscal policy does not necessarily determine the economy, for the budget and the economy are not the same thing.

Van Buren should be given credit for balancing the budget, and not blamed for the depression, while Reagan and Bush should be credited with the fiscal (taxes and spending), monetary and trade policies that contributed to economic prosperity, despite the deficits.

The point is not to suggest like liberal economist John Maynard Keynes, who influenced Franklin Roosevelt, that deficit-spending is good for the economy, but that it is not accurate to judge economic performance strictly by observing whether the federal budget is balanced. Again, liberals really do not care about whether the budget is balanced, or even whether the economy is in prosperity. All they care about is that taxes are high on the upper classes and businesses.