I'd be interested in you expounding upon this because from my recollection of Reagan and GWB economic policy was rebranded trickle down that included attempts at privatizing SS, fostering Wall Street policies that are boon for the elite and shit for everyone else, massive tax cuts that put us into large deficits all the while massively increasing spending. The whole time the political and insider narrative has been that Democrats are the ones that spend too much and have terrible economic policies. What would separate Paul from this mantra? Idon't see it. When were Ryan's policies last tried and worked?
The Republicans' biggest problem, IMO, has been the discrepancy between how they've campaigned and how they've governed. As you rightly point out, they've been massively increasing spending while campaigning on promises of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. In this regard, they lose any credibility when they complain about the Democrats doing the same. I think it's too early to know for sure which side of this Paul Ryan will fall on, but he's at least saying the right things.
FWIW, the current social security privatization plan would be a benefit to everyone. The Democrats like to say that the Republicans want to "gamble your retirement on Wall Street," and the Republicans need to do a better job advertising that their plan is optional. Nobody has to put any money in Wall Street if they don't want to, but the option to do so will be a major boon to younger workers.
Side note, supply-side economics was never actually branded "trickle-down." That has always been a pejorative from the populists.
Look. I have brought this up before. My dad used to say that politics was like a magic show. The magician gets you to focus on one hand while the other does all the work.
Trickle down, once and for all.
The actual originator of the term was Will Rogers when he spoke of supply side theorists plans for solving the woes of the Great Depression.
Then unfortunately David Stockman, chief Reaganomics proponent actually used the term, which was picked up by opponents and used in a mocking, jeering, M'arie Antoinette' sort of way. So populists started using it derisively, to expose the major, gaping flaw in the theory of supply side economics.
The major recent administrations that have purported supply side economics have been the Reagan and W Bush administrations. HW Bush couldn't move away from Reaganomics fast enough. The point being both administrations had stagnant job growth (relatively, to other administrations), greatly increased national debt, and had major, and nearly catastrophic economic downturns as hallmarks of their administrations economics policy.
Social Security Privatization
W Bush is the golden example of an actor that staked a lot of political capital on privatizing social security. If his administration hadn't bungled intelligence so badly, and then started two intractable wars, people may have remembered how badly he wanted to fuck the old people.
The fact of the matter is the government actually does some things better than private industry. It is popular to take everything that the government does, and find critical elements especially when taking the anecdotal stories out of context, (see Trump Campaign.) But the fact of the matter is that privatization can be incredibly expensive. Perfect example : See Indiana Toll road, and that is Mike Pence's baby, (great white hope of the Republican Party.)
The facts are still the same; thieves will say anything to steal your money. I still know people that were wiped out during the Bush administration (think Enron, other major insolvencies, including privatization of public pensions, relaxed rules on private pensions, and of course the repeated failures of S&L's through the housing collapse.
I have an acquaintance who served, I am thinking, about six months in Federal prison for his minor role in a fraudulent scheme to defraud the Workers Compensation Fund in the State of Ohio. This was only possible because of relaxed rules that promoted a path to privatization. Screw the fact that the private firms that came in to provide services for large employers in Ohio provided such bad service to injured workers that someone actually realized that these companies served the employers not the workers! Because nobody could figure out why these workers weren't getting better!
And this is what will happen if a private firm(s) are allowed to handle such a big concern, or outlay of public funds. The thieves will take what they don't think will be missed, until the whole thing comes to a crashing halt!
I have always wondered how someone that could label themselves as a conservative, could undertake such a radical task as fundamentally changing a government program that works. If you have a problem with Social Security, fund it. And don't eliminate front end programs that keep its cost down (ACA) fix them!
Specifically : "The Republicans' biggest problem, IMO, has been the discrepancy between how they've campaigned and how they've governed."
The Republicans biggest problem is the amount of lying they do to get elected.
They gerrymandered congressional districts so they will maintain advantage in the House until at least 2020, no matter what, and they repackage the same lies to get re-elected. But the fact of the matter is, the core of the Republican economic strategy has never worked. In part, because it is self serving; more provided for the wealthy. But partly because it requires a different type of government to make it succeed. England did better with laissez-faire because they had labor that would do their bidding, that they could then abuse, starve, kick, or kill like the Irish, Scottish, underclasses, and colonists around the world.
That is much more difficult to do in the United States. Or at least it has been.
