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.
Nice of Bruce Bartlett to be a little honest. Though, he can't help bullshitting a little bit at the end.
Bush has not cut anyone's taxes. At all. If you cut government spending, and correspondingly cut taxes, one for one, then you've cut someone's taxes.
If you increase government spending, and increase government borrowing, while cutting taxes, all you've done is tax people tomorrow. Plus compounded interest.
Nobody--except maybe people who will die within before the real bill comes due--got a goddam tax break.
I think Brad DeLong says it best:
First, can we please please please please please please PLEASE!! stop talking about Bush's "tax cuts." There are no tax cuts. There's a tax shift--current taxpayers pay less, and future taxpayers pay more. Only by pretending that nobody has to service and amortize the growing federal debt can you talk about Bush's "tax cuts." They aren't there, any more than a $5,000 increase in your VISA limit is an increase in your income.
How come I get this? And I majored in freaking English? Why isn't everyone alarmed that last year we spent three hundred and twenty billion dollars on interest on Reagan's deficit alone?
We didn't get a goddam thing for that $318 billion. Nothing. It's just interest payments. On stuff we already bought and probably replaced a decade ago. Three hundred and eighteen billion dollars.
To put that it perspective, the discretionary Pentagon budget for this year is $401 billion. And the United States spends more on it's military than the rest of the world combined.
Meaning, of course, that we spend more on just interest payments--not even touching the principal--on Reagan and, now, Bush's deficits than the rest of the world spends on their military.
And the deficit is going up. And the interest is going up. And it's compounding. And, unlike the phoney baloney, fairy tale Reagan told us(and now which Bush is retelling us), increased productivity without tax increases is not paying off their outrageous debts.
Tax cuts? Can you imagine how much we could cut our taxes if we, like Clinton started to do, paid off our unbelievable national debt? Think about the tax savings if we just suddenly cut three hundred and twenty billion dollars out of our budget.
And again, that's just the vig. That's not even the principal.
People, we got $300 checks and while we weren't looking our houses got mortgaged from under us.
George W. Bush is taxing us to death.
man, how do i get in on that action? do you think the government would want to borrow some money from me? i only charge 450% interest too ... over a course of the next 40 years. that ought to keep me in good living, eh?
Posted by: tj | July 02, 2004 at 10:57 PM
vatives 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 o
Posted by: body detox | October 30, 2010 at 06:37 AM