Reply With Quote
Somebody else misses him too.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/132051.html
Why I Miss Bill Clinton
And why the Democrats will, too
Steve Chapman | March 5, 2009
Reason
If Barack Obama achieves nothing else in his presidency, he may do something that once seemed impossible: give a lot of people who aren't crazy about his party a new respect for Bill Clinton.
Clinton, for all his appe es and excesses, was a cautious, centrist sort of Democrat. He had innumerable ideas for things the government could do, but most were small and fairly innocuous. He was willing to go along with Republicans on some of their sound ideas—such as balancing the budget, reforming the welfare system, and expanding foreign trade.
He focused on making government better, not making it bigger. He didn't greatly enlarge Washington's role in our lives. He proclaimed—or conceded—that the "era of big government is over."
But Clinton never foresaw Obama. From the sound of his budget speech last week, the new president hopes the era of big government is just beginning.
It's hard to overstate the expansion Obama proposes. Leave aside the supposedly temporary spending binge that cons utes his stimulus package. Under his budget blueprint, total spending would soar by roughly 75 percent above what it was last year.
Of whom else could that be said? Do you expect to be spending 75 percent more 10 years from now? Does your employer?
The budget deficit, which Clinton (with the help of a Republican Congress) eliminated, would be with us forever. After the gargantuan $1.75 trillion shortfall this year, it would decline briefly before climbing to more than $700 billion a year.
Obama's fiscal blueprint builds on profligate habits established by George W. Bush. Under Clinton, federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of gross domestic product—the lowest level since 1966. By 2007, it was up to 20 percent. By 2019, according to the administration, it would rise to 22.6 percent.
This increase may not sound like much, but it is. Before the current recession began, reports budget analyst Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation, government spending amounted to about $24,000 per household. Under Obama's plan, it would exceed $32,000 per household (in inflation-adjusted dollars). Someone will have to pay for every cent of that spending, and it won't be just the rich.
During the campaign, Obama often came across as a sensible pragmatist with an appreciation for both the value of markets and the limits of government—a Bill Clinton with self-discipline. He often painted Hillary Clinton as an old-fashioned, command-and-control Democrat.
But that Obama vanished sometime after Election Day. Lately, he brings to mind Lyndon Johnson, who imagined that the country could easily afford both endless war and a costly array of new programs.
Obama thinks the scariest economic crisis since the Great Depression is cause—or at least excuse—for an aggressive expansion of government, a la the New Deal. But it's a false parallel, economically and politically.
The severity of the Great Depression bred desperation, which made the public receptive to radical changes. This contraction has been far milder and less disruptive. In Franklin Roosevelt's day, Americans were open to transforming the economy. All they really want today is to revive it.
While they are willing to accept drastic measures to reverse the recent slide, they are not likely to favor keeping them once the emergency has passed. We all hope to see firefighters in the house if the kitchen catches fire. Few of us would want them to move in after the flames are out.
LBJ illustrates the dangers of taking an election victory for a far-reaching mandate. He got the Great Society passed, but two years after his landslide victory, Republicans made big gains. In 1968, Johnson didn't even run for re-election, and Richard Nixon won the presidency—which the GOP would hold for 20 of the next 24 years.
Americans, with their traditional wariness toward government, never bought into Johnson's expensive agenda. Before long, they were voting in Ronald Reagan, who saw Washington as the problem, not the solution. So even though Obama may be able to get his programs through a Democratic Congress, he and they may come to regret it.
Under Clinton, they demonstrated that his party could exercise fiscal responsibility, contain the role of government, learn from liberal failures (like welfare), and generate broad prosperity. He was convincing evidence that Democrats had changed.
Right now, I miss him. Before long, Democrats may as well.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Somebody else misses him too.
.....VAN SUSTEREN: All right, in the '90s, things were going pretty well. We had a lot of affluence. The economy was good. So I have to ask you this question. Would you do exactly to our economy now, make the same decision, as President Obama?
[Bill] CLINTON: In general, I would. I think he's got a good team and I think they're making good decisions. I think it's important that the American people understand that he has proposed and passed this stimulus plan not as the end-all and be-all to our economic woes but as our bridge over troubled water until we get the finance system, the banking system working again.
And I think the stimulus package is well conceived. A lot of it puts money in people's hands, with the unemployment benefits and the food stamps and the tax cuts. A lot of it keeps the states and local governments from laying off a million more people or having big tax increases with the aid to education and health.
And then I think the energy and the infrastructure investments will create the jobs the president wants. So I like the conception of that. And based on just what I read in the paper today, I think they've got a pretty good idea on the housing. I think they -- they intend to do something to help more homeowners stay in their homes, to take toxic assets off the books of the banks until the economy comes back, then they can put them back on, and they'll have value.
And to put some more liquidity out there, but only if the banks actually lend this money.
If those three things are done and we have a good resolution on automobiles that really promotes reform, I think we'll be on the way back. I like it.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. You said "in general," so, of course, that's what I'm seizing upon. Where would you differ? Where would you do things differently?
CLINTON: Well, I don't know, because I don't know what he had to do to get it through the Congress. That's what I mean. I think generally--
VAN SUSTEREN: Apparently nothing. I mean, he -- he got all the Democrats, and he has a Democratic Congress and a Democratic Senate.
CLINTON: Well, and he had three -- the three Republicans in the Senate. They made some changes in the Senate. And then they had -- they went to conference. It appears to me that the conference bill actually made some improvements.
But I'll just give you one little example. I hated to see them cut the tax credit back for buying an electric car from $7,500 to $4,500 a year, simply because I think it's more likely than not that the first year or so that car will cost $7,500 more than a car without an electric motor.
But I think it's really important for us to move very, very rapidly to electric cars. But that's something that came out of the Conference Committee. There was nothing he could do about it.
I think, on balance -- I think they've done a very, very good job. And the American people should feel good about it.
VAN SUSTEREN: When you were president, you came into office with a deficit. You left with a surplus. The current situation is that we have a giant deficit that's only getting worse with the stimulus package.
So it's what scares a lot of Americans. We're, you know, mortgaging future generations' future, as well. What about that?
CLINTON: There's a risk there, but let's look at what it is. First, after paying down $600 billion on the national debt at the end of my terms, we doubled the national debt in the previous eight years and got, I think, two million jobs for it, and almost all of them government jobs. So we've got this debt overhang.
And it is true that the president's stimulus package increases that debt by about $800 billion more, plus the interest that will be required to pay it off. What is the risk of that?
The risk is that as we come out of this recession, we'll have so much debt to finance, we'll either have to have inflation or very high interest rates to continue to borrow the money, or both. That's a risk.
But it's a risk that the president and his economic team and the Congress had no choice but to take, because the problem we have now, very different from when I was in office, is a wholesale drop in the value, first, of housing and then of other assets. We have got to put a floor under the drop in asset prices, beginning with the housing.
And we can't do that overnight. So I will say, again, the stimulus is our bridge over troubled waters. And if it's invested well, it'll generate a lot of economic growth, and we'll get quite a bit of the revenues back.
VAN SUSTEREN: Here's what bothers -- here's what bothers me, and a lot of people who email me, as well, is that more than anything else we want the economy lifted, we want it thriving. I mean, every good American does.
But when Congress passes a bill, passes it so quickly that members on both sides of the aisle say "Never read it," when you look at the numbers inside the bill and they're actually sort of precise, and you think that they had some sort of scientific study and they thought this is the right number, and they basically pulled it out of a hat.
It's a whole big push to get it passed on a Friday night. They even flew poor Senator Brown back from Ohio -- his mother had died -- so that he could vote and then leave. And then the president doesn't sign it in Ohio -- or doesn't sign it that night, Friday night, doesn't sign it Saturday, doesn't sign it Sunday, not Monday, and then takes till Tuesday, when there's this big rush. He flies an expensive 747 out there just for a backdrop, not for any other presidential reason. That cost millions of dollars.
And so we're sitting here thinking, "Why do we think this one's going to work?" I mean, it makes everyone -- can you see how it would make people uncomfortable?
CLINTON: Sure. I do. And I think that there must be things in that bill that the Congress or the president may not support in exactly that way if they had two more months to deal with it.
But let me back up and say, if you look at what's happened to the stock market, if you look at what's happened to housing values, if you look at what's happened to bank loan portfolios because the value of their other assets that they've already issued loans against were going down, I think there was a pretty good argument for trying to pass something at about this level of investment with the divisions as they were--unemployment, food stamps, and tax cuts, aid to education and healthcare, and job creation.
There was an argument for doing that as quickly as possible.
I think what should be done now--and you can contribute to this--is people ought to be going over this, finding things they don't like. Congress has clearly proved they can act in a hurry. If there's something wrong with it, it can be amended. If something needs to be kicked in, it can be put in. If something needs to be taken out, it can be taken out.
If something needs to be cured administratively, that can be done. For example, the secretary of energy will have quite a lot of discretionary authority about how some of this energy efficiency money will be spent. So, yes, I get it. I get why people are worried. But we were in a cir stance where I think the president believed, the economic team believed they had to move as quickly as they could.
And based on the evidence, and I just follow it every day in the press and look at the numbers from the Federal Reserve, I would say they were right. We needed to do something in a hurry.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, I don't dispute it, but it makes me very nervous when people pass things they haven't read. I mean, that seems just so 101 to me, that you read it.
And when I think of speed, I know that you can throw a switch at the IRS and get rid of unemployment tax for people who make, let's say, less than $200,000. That's an immediate stimulus in the next pay period.
And then when I look at these and see these incredible numbers, and I think to myself, "Has anybody even read this?" And the answer is, "No, we're all hoping for the best," which, you know, it's very unnerving as a citizen.
CLINTON: But I would think the leaders of the committees and their staffs and the people in the White House have read it. And the people at OMB, I think they do know what's in it. And I think that, as I said, in general terms -- the only reason I said "in general" is not to qualify it. It's that I haven't seen all the details.
The only thing I know which should not have been changed is the tax credit for electric cars, because that'll generate a huge number of jobs in America and keeps us moving in the right direction with energy independence.
But when you do anything this big this quick, there are going to be mistakes. But is it on balance a very good bill? I think it is....
more..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497206,00.html
boioiooiooiioiiooiiing
Somebody else misses him too.
Clinton was as much a corporate as most politicians. He contributed to deregulation and the financial mess as much as Reagan, Bush, and Bush II.
Obama is a different sort of politician, it seems. I was skeptical that he would be, since for all my life I've only ever seen one kind. I had hoped Clinton would be more like Obama, that was where I was duped.
Fundamentalist capitalism doesn't work for anyone one except the elite few at the top. That's been proven over an over again in the U.S., in Chile, in Argentina, in Bolivia, in Russia. It's time for a return of the Keynesian capitalism we had post WW II under FDR.
Clinton listened to Republicans because he had to.
Don't kid yourself.
"Keynesian capitalism" never left.
lol dont think clinton did in the 90s man or any president/govt that time around the world....all riding the internet boom which was funding the good economic run....even when the internet bubble busted, it was still good times
It certainly left Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Russia, Poland at various times in their histories...all with the same disasterous results.
No, it has not left the U.S....but all of the presidents since the Cold War ended have tried, except Obama, so far.
You do know that FDR dies DURING WWII - and that painting the '50's as anything that can be repeated economically is fools gold? The entire world, save our country was destroyed; we got to rebuild it, and charge to do so - makes for a fast rising sea raising all ships, ya' know?
As for capitilism 'ONLY" helping those at the very top? Strange, I drive through cities all the time, many, many middle, and upper-miiddle class types; take vacations to Disney World and ; drive SUV's, all kinds of cool stuff. Go to Mexico if you want to see what "only the top" being sucessfull REALLY looks like. Or Russia, or China.
Where is better than here? What is your goal, your panacea? What is your desire? When would you conisder "mission accomplished"? How many cars and T.V.'s do people need to have before you might consider that capatilism has served a purpose?
What Obama is doing currently has NEVER worked. There is NO historical precedent that policies that raise taxes, increase govt. spending, regulation and control will raise the standard of living for the population. In fact there is AMPLE evidence that exactly the opposite occurs. Where are you drawing your belief system from? I just cannot fathom.
America still has a mixed economy system, which has protected much of the middle class from becoming impoverished.
Have you traveled to Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Russia, Poland, China in the past 20 years? All of those countries have experienced a fundamentalist capitalist revolution that deregulated and privatized most of their countries industries. The results across the board have been great wealth for corporations and mass poverty for 70-80% of people living in those countries. Also, since their economic policies have been so unpopular, each one of these countries has been forced to adopt or maintain a totalitarian, repressive government in order to enforce those policies.
Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, it's quite thorough and eye-opening.
It is interesting that centrist and moderat Dems have all the power at the moment, just as moderate republicans, derided as RINO's by their own party, had all the power before.
Only Journalism majors rival education majors in marginal intelligence; don't need to read a book by an activist journalist daughter of activists to guess it's full of crap. Nice source. I understand now.
Are you kidding me?
Chile, Bolivia, Argentia, Russia, Poland and China?
Seriously.
ALWAYS heard Freidman holding those up as to what he is talking about.
The original article is a little disingenuous. One of the first thing the Clintons tried to do was provide universal health care. They had a decidedly more progressive agenda when they took office, surrounded themselves by the more ideological types that helped get him elected.
The sound defeated they suffered in the health care debate and the Democrats losses in Congress forced Clinton to be more moderate, and the Stephanopoulises were replaced by the Gergens who could get things done in such a climate. The same thing could easily happen to Obama if he destroys America -- but if the economy turns around by next year, Republicans might be ed.
Who are these centrist and moderate Dems?
I agree 100% with that assessment.
Since I own a business, and do much better, generally in good financial times, I hope it does; I don't "Want" Obama to fail; I want him, and his policies, to succeed. History, however, suggests he will not.
I think much of it depends on the timing of any tax increases. My understanding is they are not going to be immediate. If they happen after the economy turns around, the vast majority of people aren't going to care.
That begs the question -- how do tax hikes two years down the line destroy America today?
Long-term investors might make decisions based on things that will happen two years from now. The worst thing about the Bush tax cuts, in my opinion, was their temporary nature.
The worst thing about the tax cuts was there were no corresponding cuts in spending.
They don't destroy America. In fact, paying higher taxes makes you more patriotic.
Except I'd hope you realize that had something to do with representation (or lack thereof).
Well, I don't believe that tax policy and economic performance are unrelated. I think if Bush had been able to make his tax cuts permanent, our economy would have performed much better over the last several years because there would have been more certainty among ivestors. Because they were only temporary, their economic effect has probably been less-than-stellar. Which, given the unrestrained spending of the Bush years, means their budgetary impact has been bad.
If Bush had controlled non-defense discretionary spending with his veto, and if he had been able to make his tax cuts permanent, I believe our budget would be in much better shape.
Again, I want to emphasize my earlier point. Investors who are concerned about future tax increases may adjust their behavior accordingly. They might think, for instance, that Obama's current and future economic policies will be bad for the economy. Capital might flee to overseas. That's why, I think, Obana's plans for 2011 might be relevant to the stock market's performance.
It would have done nothing to stave of this current recession.
Maybe not starting an unnecessary war would have done something too.If Bush had controlled non-defense discretionary spending with his veto, and if he had been able to make his tax cuts permanent, I believe our budget would be in much better shape.
I simply don't think the taxes are as onerous as they are being portrayed. There has been economic growth in times with equal or higher tax environments. Investors are scared sheep right now, and if anyone can take some heat off them for their truly awful performance of late, they are going to take advantage of that.Again, I want to emphasize my earlier point. Investors who are concerned about future tax increases may adjust their behavior accordingly. They might think, for instance, that Obama's current and future economic policies will be bad for the economy. Capital might flee to overseas. That's why, I think, Obana's plans for 2011 might be relevant to the stock market's performance.
You've got to be ing kidding me. Are you seriously suggesting that investors stopped wanting to make money, because there was a chance they might pay marginally higher taxes on said EARNINGS, at some point down the road?
I'm sorry, but it's just ing stupid to suggest that investors everywhere were cutting off their noses, to spite their faces, as a consequence of Bush's tax cuts having an expiration date. What a joke.
You show me the guy that said, "I could make a million bucks in the market, but I don't want to because I might end up paying 3% more of it in taxes," and I'll show you a ing moron who didn't deserve the earnings in the first place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
