> When he was in office, Ronald Reagan looked bad. Now, by today's
> standards, he looks like a progressive.
>
> Reagan, Ronald. 1973. "On Spending and the Nature of Government."
> National Review (7 December).
>
> "When I took office in 1967, we discovered that the promise of "no tax
> increases" could not be carried out. California was virtually
> insolvent, the precious administration having changed that state's
> system of budgetary bookkeeping in a way that allowed the spending of
> 15 months' revenue in twelve months' time, thus avoiding a major tax
> increase in election year 1966. The state government was spending $1
> million a day more than it was collecting."
>
> "California, unlike the Federal Government, cannot print more money or
> pile up deficits. The governor is required to submit a balanced
> budget, and if any additional taxes are needed to balance revenues
> with spending, the constitution requires the governor to propose
> higher taxes."
>
> "So our first major lesson in government was painful: for the
> taxpayers and for us. We had to increase taxes by some $800 million to
> balance the unbalanced budget we inherited."
This was actually orthodox right-wing doctrine at the time. It was considered "liberal" to resist tax increases in the face of deficits and "conservative" to accept their necessity. That only changed in 1978-80 with the emergence of Laffer-type rationales for tax cuts. In the 1976 campaign, Jude Wanniski had tried to convince the Reagan team to embrace Jack Kemp's supply-side tax cut proposals, but they were rejected on "fiscal responsibility" grounds. Obviously that stance was reversed over the next four years, which proved to be a major reason for conservative electoral success.
SA