I agree that it ended up not saving money in the long run. I was never under the impression that JFK started the act to close state mental hospitals. I have always thought it was to de-institutionalize all medical treatment that could be done in an outpatient environment.

If memory serves me, the movement to put the mentally ill into the community hit its zenith in the late 70s. It certainly wasn’t any one president who made this ultimately happen. There were many movers and shakers out there who pushed for this great emancipation of those locked up. The courts didn’t help the situation either.

I personally feel that chronic mentally ill people have way too many rights. I have seen them in hospitals and out in the general population. I feel they are far better off and so are we if they are in hospitals.

This subject exemplifies the expression about beware of unintended consequences.

The fact is JFK started the Act to close state psychiatric hospitals. It took many years to implement that plan. Now we really do not have a place for chronic schizophrenics who cannot be managed in the community.

I don’t think we can attribute any one president to the emptying of mental hospitals. There was much furor during the 40s, 50, 60’s over abuses in hospitals and the idea that people were committed for life with no chance of ever coming out.

I would say the situation evolved, and by Reagan’s era, the die was cast because of the emphasis on fiscal conservatism. Closing down the huge facilities saved money.

Mr. Monticup — Jack Ruby was placed in a mental institution, so I guess they weren’t all closed by the time JFK left office.

That said, the Community Health Services and Facilities Act of 1961 provided states with funding to establish out patient style mental health centers. ( JFK’s adminsitration was heavily focused on mental retardation due to his own sister’s diagnosis. This also resulted in JFK’s sister, Eunice to found the Special Olypmics.)

To that point in time all inmates were diagnosed at one level of crazy rather than varying degrees. My understanding is that yes, the process to begin to strategically place folks in state mental institutions began to shift with this public law. State funding for these programs all but disappeared under Reagan.

I did not realize until you said so that this process began under JFK. Thanks for the clarification.

It is a FACT that without the MUCH needed military build-up under President Reagan under a VERY hostile Congress. It is so funny how the libs talk about how bad Bush is doing and treat him like the devil incarnate (only Reagan before him was afforded this “honor”) yet fail to mention that the only two institutions on the trust scale that get lower approval ratings are Congress, then the media.

People can criticize Republicans like Reagan all they want for spending more money, but the fact is that Reagan’s philosophy was that government does few things well, but those few things (e.g., defense) deserve higher priority than they got under Carter and the succession of liberals who preceded him. It is easy to point to bigger budgets and pin them on Reagan, but the fact is he opposed tooth and nail the expansion of the welfare state that occurred under his watch at the behest of the Democrat controlled Congress. Where he had a free hand, Reagan rolled back the influence of the federal government in favor of states, markets, and individuals. This is best evidenced by his vast deregulation efforts, as well as by the activities of the Reagan Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission. Further, as big as the federal budget got under Reagan, both its scope and domestic influence shrank under his leadership. The legacy of these efforts is twofold: (1) the virtually unbroken prosperity we’ve experienced since the early 1980s; and (2) Republican ascendancy to the majority nationwide in the early 1990s.

To be certain, Reagan was not 100% effective, and even found it good for the country to compromise at times. Indeed, it was such a compromise that allowed the funding of the Strategic Defense Initiative that had an important role in the endgame of the Cold War. But these shortcomings don’t diminish the power of his underlying message. Logically, one can’t criticize a message by saying the messenger wasn’t faithful in enacting it…that doesn’t make sense, TurnPWBlue.

The rollback of the GOP majority is directly and positively correlated to Republicans’ departures from Reagan’s sound basic principles. Virtually the entirety of the domestic agenda of the GWB administration–enabled by a weak-spined GOP majority on Capitol Hill–is an illustration of this. We saw it again in Virginia, and that’s the message Lingamfelter is highlighting to those who care about actually getting conservative policies enacted.

You mean the Spanish or the English version?

Sarcasm button off now.

As for all the nasty comments on this threat about conservatives who supported Gill, get over it. Gill decided to run long before Lucas or anyone else. That is Lucas’s fault and others who were NOT decisive in their decisionmaking. That is the main reason Cuccinelli, Bolling, Lingamfelter and other prominent state conservatives came out to support Gill. Its very unhealthy to hold grudges over who supports who in a primary and it is very obvious some are bitter about it. I am certainly glad to see Greg does not hold grudges over who elected officials support in a primary.

The fact remains that as President, the federal government expanded by 90%. Some of that was entitlement programs that the Democratic Congress passed (and Reagan signed into law). A lot of that was also defense spending. While an argument can be made that this spending helped bring down the Soviet Union, that’s an argument for another day. The important part of the issue is that the size of government increased dramatically while Reagan was in office. And while Reagan did lower the overall tax rate, he didn’t bring about those cuts by actually reducing the size of government. He did it by borrowing and running a budget in the red to an extent never before seen (but unfortunately repeated with a vengeance by the current administration). And let’s not forget the tax hikes Reagan put into effect while Governor.

Reagan was a lot of things, but a small government, lower taxes guy really isn’t too consistent with actual history.

Nice try. Maybe we should stick the Democrats with being the party of slave owners?

Most of the growth of the Federal Government under Reagan was due to growth in entitlement programs — based onn legislation passed by Democrats. I remember hearing this from Robert Reischauer (sp?), who directed the Congressional Budget Office under the Democrats. Remember, under Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70% to 28%, yet Federal Revenues doubled. The Democrats who ran Congress (particularly the House of Representatives) wanted to spend a whole lot more. I imagine that, if you were old enough, you probably were calling Reagan “mean.”

Very well put. I guess that is why I am an Independent. One size doesn’t fit all. If our legislators and political parties would work together more and stop the partisan bickering, perhaps they could get on with the business of running the country.