The Clinton Years

“Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, worked in the White House under President Ronald Reagan and in the Treasury Department under President George H. W. Bush.

By BRUCE BARTLETT

Published: July 1, 2004


ARTICLE TOOLS


E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles








READERS' OPINIONS


Forum: Join a Discussion on Op-Ed Contributors






TIMES NEWS TRACKER



Topics
Alerts

Clinton, Bill




Presidents and Presidency (US)




Bartlett, Bruce








REAT FALLS, Va. — The death of Ronald Reagan led many of his liberal opponents to reassess his presidency, with some concluding that it was better than they thought at the time. The publication of Bill Clinton's memoir, meanwhile, has led many conservatives to reassess his presidency — and most have concluded that it was as awful as they remembered.

If they were honest with themselves, however, conservatives would view the Clinton presidency the same way many liberals now view the Reagan years. Just as Ronald Reagan was not as bad as many liberals thought, neither was Bill Clinton as bad as many conservatives think.

Like most conservatives, I thought Bill Clinton was a terrible president when he was in office. Especially after the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, we all dreamed of the paradise that would be ours if we could just get a Republican in the White House. We could fix the budget and the tax system, rein in the bureaucracy, neuter the trade unions and trial lawyers, and do all those other things that could never be done because Democrats were always blocking the way.

It was foolish to think like this, of course, just as it is foolish for Democrats to think that every mistake President George W. Bush has made would have been avoided if Al Gore had won in 2000. Circumstances beyond any president's control determine much of what he does in office. If Mr. Gore had won, there would have still been a recession in 2001 that would have caused much of the surplus to disappear, even if there had been no tax cuts. And in all likelihood, the attacks on the World Trade Center would have happened, too.

Yet presidents are not impotent. Sometimes their impact comes from what they don't do, rather than what they do. Sometimes the most important thing a president can do is resist the demand or temptation to act when the right course is to do nothing. And sometimes a president is forced to do things against his will. In the end, however, a president can be judged only by what actually happens on his watch; not by what he thought or intended or by what he might have done but wasn't able to.

On this basis, conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency. At least on economic policy, there is much to praise and little to criticize in terms of what was actually done (or not done) on his watch.

Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround that can be appreciated by realizing that this year's deficit, as large as it is, will reach only 4.2 percent of G.D.P., according to the Congressional Budget Office.

More important, from a conservative point of view, Mr. Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.

Although much of the budgetary savings came from lower defense spending and reduced interest on the debt, entitlement spending also fell to 10.6 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 11.5 percent in 1992. Mr. Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, the only time in American history when an entitlement program was abolished. By virtually all accounts, welfare reform has been a success.

Mr. Clinton was also steadfast in his support for free trade. It is doubtful that anyone else could have persuaded Congress to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement. On monetary policy, he reappointed Alan Greenspan, a Republican, as chairman of the Federal Reserve, thereby helping to bring inflation down to its lowest sustained level in a generation.

By contrast, Mr. Clinton's Republican successor has caused the surplus to evaporate, raised total federal spending by 1.6 percent of G.D.P., established a new entitlement program for prescription drugs and adopted the most protectionist trade policy since Herbert Hoover. While President Bush has done other things that conservatives view more favorably, like cutting taxes, there is no getting around the reality that Mr. Clinton was better in many respects.

The fact that Mr. Clinton accomplished conservative objectives against his will in some cases, and in others only because a Republican Congress prevented him from enacting more liberal reforms, is beside the point. What matters is what actually was accomplished while Mr. Clinton was in office. On that score, he did much that conservatives should approve of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/opinion/01BART.html”

“I once heard that the best thing Clinton did in reference to the economy was to stay out of the way. This articule backs up that claim.

Thanks for the post.”

“A friend of mine who writes a column in my hometown paper and, who is a self-proclaimed conservative, has written that Clinton was a better conservative than is our present president.
Check the facts, and I think you'll agree.”

“Most people don't recognize that the economy (unemployment, intrest rates, ect.) are right in line with what they were in '96 when Klinton was running for reelection. And of course he was running on how great things were economicly. Of course the same number today spell doom and gloom.”

“The catch is that time is ticking away. The baby boomers will begin to retire and we're still heading in the Wrong direction with the debt. Servicing the national debt will consume more and more of discretionary spending until something has to give.

That's a simple fact, Nigal. It's not like trying to follow the process of an energy derivative. If you begin to step over the edge of a cliff, is it 'gloom & doom' to predict a fall?


Years ago, a Poly Sci professor explained to us that the Federal Gov't was designed specifically so that things wouldn't get done, LOL --- It always seemed safer to me as well... so I always got a huge laugh when politicians complained about the Dreaded Gridlock, <G>

I guess 'gridlock' is bad if you're a politician, but it's better for everyone (and everything) else in the country.”

“Some of it is momentum - with Clinton in '96 the deficit was shrinking, as was spending and government. With Bush its all going the oppposite direction.”

“So Nigal, what your saying is that Bush only undid half the progress Clinton made - not all of it.”

“"The catch is that time is ticking away. The baby boomers will begin to retire and we're still heading in the Wrong direction with the debt.”

I know you’re probably tired of hearing this but the economy is, in fact, growing faster now than in the last 20 years. I would also say that any baby-boomer than is sitting back expecting the gubmint to be there for them is being naïve. Sad? Yes, but true. I do hear what you’re saying though.”

“"So Nigal, what your saying is that Bush only undid half the progress Clinton made - not all of it."

So it’s all Bush’s fault then? LOL! The president can’t spend one red dime without congress can he? Bush inherited a declining economy (not trying to blame it on Clinton btw). It had already started dipping by March of ‘00 and we can’t try to say that 9/11 had no impact. That was a heavy hit. We are really lucky to be where we are now.”

“Lucky??

Ha ha ! !”

“Nigal, are you familiar with the concept of 'starving the beast'?”

“No. Thanks for the link. I'll read into it when I get some time.”

“That's a link to an AltaVista search so you can check different sources, but the basic idea is that increased deficit spending forces a reduction in other gov't programs. It's a great exploit for polticians who are afraid of the fallout that would occur if they attacked Social Security and other programs head-on. Unfortunately, out-of-control spending is the sort of thing that brings down governments... like what happened in the USSR. If any of the wackos in DC are seriously following this path, we could be in deep #&%!$, LOL

Anyway... check it out when you get a chance.”

“If the economy was doing so poorly in March of 2000, then why did Greenspan, in his January 2001 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, argue for tax cuts to insure against us paying off the debt too quickly?

If things were looking so bleak, how could the nation's economic guru not see that there were no surpluses to redistribute?

At that same hearing, Greenspan argued that tax cuts should be phased in so as not to lose the "hard-earned fiscal restraint developed in recent years" because "that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake." - in other words #&%!$ing up the budget and harming growth as the Bush misadministration has done.

Mighty funny how quiet Greenspan has been recently since he was such a public deficit scold during the Clinton years and the very situation he warned about has come to pass.”

“Reread my post V, I said it was already in decline by March of 2000. Three months after your link and "poorly" is your term, not mine.”

“You use an odd calendar, Nigal.”

“"I know you’re probably tired of hearing this but the economy is, in fact, growing faster now than in the last 20 years......"

Ya know, I've been hearing this for a couple of months or so. I wish someone would come up to Michigan and explain this to us. We haven't seen anything up here. Auto caompanies are suffering huge losses in the last month.

Do you have any info on this, Nigal? Where's your source? I'd like to see some of this "recovery" you speak of. Seeing IS believeing....”

“The economy is working just like W and his "base", (the have-mores), want it to. The rich are getting richer and the rest of us wait for it to trickle down.”

“"You use an odd calendar, Nigal."

Sorry V, I thought the date on the link said 2000, not 2001.”

“Glad to see old Willy pulled through from his by-pass yesterday. Sounded like he got checked out just in time.”

“That was a lot of blockage! Could have made for a rather MASSIVE heart attack...”

“they said one was like 90% blocked. Yikes! He was lucky to make it to the docs. You know it's bad when you get short of breath and chest pain sitting still.

Can't wait for my first by-pass!”

“I guess Willy Jeff would have croaked on the Santanonni Range.”

“It sounds like he would have croaked going upstairs. the tough thing about congestive heart failure is it happens slowly and ya don't know how bad ya feel until ya get new plumbing.”

“SAN FRANCISCO - Lawyers for a death row inmate, including former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, sent fake letters from jurors asking California’s governor to spare the man’s life, prosecutors said Friday.

The jurors denied they thought Michael Morales deserved clemency because some of the testimony at his trial may have been fabricated, said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

“We showed each person the declaration on their behalf and they all said they didn’t say that,” Barankin said.

San Joaquin County prosecutor Charles Schultz also said the letters sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week were “untrue” and “pure fiction.”

Starr was not immediately available for comment, said a spokeswoman for the Pepperdine School of Law, where Starr is the dean.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11283911”

“More proof that death row inmates shouldn't be spared due to public pressure.”

“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

“Later investigations criticized the federal agents. The United States Department of Justice's report recommended criminal prosecution of federal agents, though nothing has come of this. The surviving members of the Weaver family received a $3.1 million settlement.”


The shock! The Federal Government screws up (well, perhaps “screws up” isn’t the proper term for murdering citizens) and is held completely unaccountable except for a monetary fine.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian

The shock! The Federal Government screws up (well, perhaps “screws up” isn’t the proper term for murdering citizens) and is held completely unaccountable.




Clinton says this was one of his deepest regrets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide




Just a few “minor” problems:

Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.

Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars to corrupt Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly in shooting down missionary aircraft, killing American woman and her infant child.

Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily involved in drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft. Lauderdale Florida hidden inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane. Nearly 20,000 people killed by US supported military and para-military so far.

Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military coup to remove elected President Aristide, then forcibly re-installs Aristide as President after he agrees to US conditions of rule.

Sudan 1998 - US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.

Afghanistan 1998 - US missiles kill 28 civilians

Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists.




As far as doing what is the most difficult job in the world, I think Clinton did a pretty good job. A president has the extraordinary job of reacting to national and international events beyond his control.

I really thought Clinton did a pretty good job in most areas.




I’m also sure that all of the anti-war protestors (such as the NYT), who are so vocal today, were equally vocal back then. No? The Shock!”

“Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.

That was Lame Ass Bush. Very immoral IMHO.”

“Yeah, 1992-1994... Bush...yeah... right, Skippy. You're probably too young to remember when Clinton was elected. The information is available in the history books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu”

“That history on Haiti seems rather biased and speculative. What evidence do you have for CIA support of the coup? Do you believe this was done with Clinton's blessing (and if so, on what evidence?)? What evidence do you have that Clinton's approach to the coup changed or that Aristide agreed to some American conditions, or that there was a link between these alleged events?

The dates on South American countries are quite biased. There has been a long standing policy to use US aid to South and Central America to try to maintain alliances in the drug war, and to keep regimes pliant and cooperative. I'm not supporting Clinton on these things - but I didn't see much change of direction in policy towards South America as compared to what it was before he came in. Yes, there should have been changes - and his failure to change policy significantly from his predecessors could fairly be counted agaisnt him.”

“LOL! I'm a little fuzzy today but I believe Bush, as a lame ass, first sent the troops into Somalia.”

“LMAO!”

“http://www.empereur.com/somaliaus.html

Operation Restore Hope. Lame Ass sends troops into Somalia a month after being defeated in the Election.

A Lame Ass sent troops into a conflict.”

“A 78 year old Social Security recipient shot by Dick Cheney.”

“December 5, 1992 U.N. accepted U.S. offer, President Bush ordered 25,000 U.S. troops to Somalia.

December 9, 1992 First U.S. Marines landed on beach.
December 1992 U.S. named mission “Operation Restore Hope.”

January 1993 President Bill Clinton inaugurated.

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/Somalia93/Somalia93.html#timeline”

““The Battle of Mogadishu was fought between forces of the United States against Somalian guerrilla fighters loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid on October 3 and 4, 1993 in the Black Sea district of Mogadishu, Somalia.”


Yo, Skippy. Read the link, pinhead.






“The dates on South American countries are quite biased.”

Pedxing


Biased? Are you saying that from 1992 – 01 the US didn’t provide military support, millions of dollars to corrupt Fujimori government? How can you say that Vladimir Montesino wasn’t on the CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief?

Ped, I believe that’s well documented. How are those dates “biased”? Well some of this happened during Clinton’s term. Does that make it biased in your eyes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Montesino



The Columbia dates are “biased”? Are you saying that the U.S. didn’t conduct (and expand) its “war on drugs” during Clinton’s administration? What the heck do you find “biased” about that?

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/20/mccaffrey/




I’ve talked about this before, maybe you ignored it. I’m not talking about who’s MORE at fault here. I’m talking specifically about what Clinton did. Are you in denial again?





Here are some sites. Those leftist greens seem especially biased don’t you think?:

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/usbomber.htm

http://proliberty.com/observer/20011002.htm

http://www.greens.org/s-r/27/27-01a.html



And as for Haiti:

Gosh, darn, those leftists are biased aren’t they?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/HaitiJan96_Nairn.html”

“I explained why those dates were biased - they are selected from a set of policies which Clinton did not start.”

“Ok ped, so we’ve determined that you’re in denial.


The CIA involvement with Haiti, “Clinton did not start.“ So he was completely in the dark about what was happening during his two terms?

“Clinton did not start” the invasion of Somalia and so was not responsible for the battle of Mogadishu?

“Clinton did not start” the “war on drugs” and so was not responsible its escalation?

“Clinton did not start” the CIA involvement with Vladimir Montesino and so was not responsible for him still being on the payroll throughout his two terms?

Clinton “Clinton did not start” the actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco . So Clinton really wasn’t responsible for those actions either?

Clinton was just a leaf, carried along by the winds of fate, and everything bad that happened was completely out of his control to change or influence.




My head is a little fuzzy about this logic. So that means…

…Bush did not start FEMA. So Bush wasn’t responsible for the federal government’s response to Katrina either, was he?
last edited: 2/12/06 5:18:50 PM”

“Bottom line: Big government sucks.

Slash the government by 80% and get back to our roots people!”

“Why do you have to resort to name calling, asslite?

Just a few “minor” problems:

Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.
arclite
11:36:18 AM
2/12/06

Yeah, 1992-1994... Bush...yeah... right, Skippy. You're probably too young to remember when Clinton was elected. The information is available in the history books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu”
arclite
4:06:39 PM
2/12/06


You pointed out 1992 TWICE and that I was to young to remember, asslite. Too proud to admit you're wrong? I understand.

pointing out some battle during Clintons admin doesn't make you right.

Do you remember Nixon Started Vietnam?”

“Bearmagnet take it easy on the wingers. They only recieve history and news filtered through the pig-mans Oxycontin laced golden microphone.

With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_018.htm”

“I know, Just as Reagan single handedly defeated the Soviet Union.

That's OK. I'll give Somalia to Clinton if they give Vietnam to Nixon.
last edited: 2/12/06 8:50:33 PM”

“What I like best about the Clinton years is in my wallet! What a time to be a young adult! The positive energy that radiated throught the entire country was euphoric. I didn't start out as a Clinton fan. In fact I had to be beaten over the head with the facts, before I quit being a right wing ditto head and opened my eyes. I'm still a registered Republican because since Clinton, the Democrats haven't made it worth the effort to change my card.

George Herbert Walker Bush will always be remembered for a terrible economy, the S & L scandal and Iran Contra where he and Oliver North exchanged drugs for arms in South and Central America. I would say that George HW Bush is actually more evil than George W. George HW is a smart guy from a rich, evil and powerful family who seeked the ultimate office and achieved it. The dirty deals he has conducted with powerful scum worldwide are numerous. He also endeavored and achieved getting his sons elected to high office. George W on the other hand is a f--kup. Every thing the man has ever been in charge of from his military career to the highest office in the land has went to chit. He is but a puppet which has a terrible time reading a teleprompter. His actions are rarely his own and he is a cheap facade of his office.”

“Huuuummmmmmmmm?
“Bearmagnet take it easy on the wingers. They only recieve history and news filtered through the pig-mans Oxycontin laced golden microphone.



......and this from the guy that argued on and on about the planes not knocking down the twin towers.

Goes, both ways, buddy. LOL

Y'all all need to cool down. Too much name calling on this thread.”

“Stovie I never said that planes did not hit the towers. I only stated that the speed which they fell would indicate that unburned floors offered zero resistance. The reason for the collapse of building 7 is still a mystery. Do I believe that Bush and his boys knew about it ahead of time? Yes Can I prove it? No What am I going to do about it? I'm going to pretend that it didn't happen and go on with my good life. End result, I'm a coward for not screaming it to every person that I see.”

“and butthead started the name calling, dad!”

“Bearmagnet, you’re a child.

Sarge was kind not to give me any preconceived notions about you. Now that I’ve had some days to follow your posts (on a number of threads), it’s obvious to me that you are a child. You have the emotional development of a sixth grader.

Your arguments lack logic, you don’t pay attention to what others say, and your insults are childish.

Are you still living with mommy and daddy? Skippy, you sure act like it.




What part of The Battle of Mogadishu don’t you understand Bateauxdriver?”

“and asslite, your a pompous ass. you prove it time and time again. Your argument and logic fails you outside those who don't believe your ideology.

The best you can do is name calling. On top of that, you show no respect. So please don't call me the child. Your choice of words are immature, at best.


I didn't start the insults. remember? Or is this like your History Memory?
last edited: 2/12/06 9:57:07 PM”

“What Bearmagnet has stated is that George HW Bush sent in the troops after he was a lame duck. Clinton inherited the mess. Clinton had reduced troop numbers leading up to the battle of Mogadishu. In fact there were so few troops available that cooks and clerks had to go in to rescue wounded troops. Next to not going into Rowanda, the lack of armor and air assets to the troops on the ground in Mogidishu was Clintons worst moves. UN troops with light armor pulled our fat out of the fire in Mog. George W. Bush made the same mistake in Afganistan. The ground troops went in without armor and artillery protection. The Brittish pulled our arse out of the fire with their fire support, early in the war on terror.”

“If Clinton was blamed for the lack of fire support in Mogadishu, why isn't Bush blamed for the lack of fire support in Afganistan. Hundreds if not thousands of Taliban got away and lots of our soldiers were lost due to lack of fire support in Afganistan. The Military Industrial Complex is not interested in old technology like mortars and artillery. There is very little money to be made with them. Artillery guns last for decades and rounds are fairly cheap. High tech air assests are where the lobby money is at. They have their place of course but so does good old ARTY. The Crusader artillery program has been cut maybe it should have been scaled down but not cut. Our troops are using atrillery technology which is 40 to 50 years old right now. Rumsfeld wanted the Crusader program cut, so to prove a point our troops went in with only air support. Lucky for them they had their morters. The Brits when they went in brought their guns.

A cut and paste from a 10th Mountain Division article.

Why was there NO ARTILLERY BROUGHT INTO AFGHANISTAN FOR THIS FIGHT? Did Secretary of the Defense Rumsfield "do an Aspin" and deny artillery to our fighting men so he could showcase his favored aircraft delivered firepower and later use a success in Afghanistan as an excuse to get rid of Army gun artillery just like the missile-crazy Navy got rid of battleships?? Notice the U.S. marines, the biggest braggerts on earth, didn't bring any artillery during their short time ashore in Afghanistan...we certainly would have heard about their "big guns". Was this no accident? Or was it someone else that told everyone no arty in Afghanistan?? Who determined the force structure would have no artillery? CENTCOM? This is a telling question in light of Rumsfield's DoD trying to cancel the Army's Crusader self-propelled howitzer system...We have been prepping drop and landing zones with arty for well over 6 decades and suddenly for Anaconda we decide its not necessary? ”