CATO INSTITUTE: CLINTON MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH

The Cato Institute ^ | August 8th, 2002 | Veronique de Rugy

[That Subliminal Kid]

Actions Speak Loudest:
Who's the more fiscally conservative, Clinton or Bush?

by Veronique de Rugy

August 8, 2002

Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

President Bush may be repeating the sins of his father. Although elected on a Reaganesque, tax-cutting platform, he has veered left. President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental-health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.

It makes little sense to discourage one's core supporters prior to a midterm election. Yet that is the result when a Republican president expands government, which Bush is doing. Also, academic research on voting patterns shows that a president is most likely to get re-elected if voters are enjoying an increase in disposable income. Yet making government bigger is not a recipe for economic growth. After all, there is a reason why Hong Kong grows so fast and France is an economic basket case. But you can't tell that to the Bush administration.

Administration officials privately admit that much of the legislation moving through Congress represents bad public policy. Yet they argue either that everything must take a back seat to the war on terror (much as the first Bush administration treated the war against Iraq) or that compromises are necessary to neutralize issues such as education. But motives and rationalizations do not repeal the laws of economics.

In less than two years, President Bush has presided over more government expansion than took place during eight years of Bill Clinton. For instance:

The education bill expands federal involvement in education. The administration originally argued that the new spending was a necessary price to get vouchers and other reforms. Yet the final bill boosted spending and was stripped of almost all reform initiatives. And there is every reason to believe that this new spending will be counter-productive, like most other federal money spent on education in the past 40 years. Children and taxpayers are the big losers.

The farm bill is best characterized as a bipartisan orgy of special interest politics. Making a mockery of the Freedom to Farm Act, the new legislation boosts farm spending to record levels. Old subsidies have been increased and new subsidies created. Perhaps worst of all, the administration no longer has the moral credibility to pressure the European Union to reform its socialized agricultural policies. Taxpayers and consumers are the big losers.

The protectionist decisions on steel and lumber imports make free traders wish Bill Clinton were still president. These restrictions on world commerce have undermined the productivity of U.S. manufacturers by boosting input prices and creating massive ill will in the international community. American products already have been targeted for reciprocal treatment. Consumers and manufacturers are the big losers.

The campaign finance law is an effort to protect the interests of incumbent politicians by limiting free-speech rights during elections. The administration openly acknowledged that the legislation is unconstitutional, yet was unwilling to make a principled argument for the Bill of Rights and fair elections. Voters and the Constitution are the big losers.

New health-care entitlements are akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. Medicare and Medicaid already are consuming enormous resources, and the burden of these programs will become even larger when the baby-boom generation retires. Adding a new prescription-drug benefit will probably boost spending by $1 trillion over 10 years. A mandate for mental-health coverage will drive up medical costs, making insurance too expensive for many more families.

These Bush policy decisions make government bigger and more expensive. They also slow the economy and hurt financial markets (seen the headlines lately?). For all his flaws, President Clinton's major policy mistake was the 1993 tax increase. Other changes, such as the welfare-reform bill, NAFTA, GATT, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation, moved policy in a market-oriented direction.

Perhaps most importantly, there was actually a reduction in federal spending as a share of gross domestic product during the Clinton years. Yet spending is headed up under the Bush administration.

To be sure, much of the credit for Clinton's good policy probably belongs to the Republican Congress, but that is not an excuse for bad policy today. And on one positive note, President Bush has "promised" to fight for partial privatization of Social Security. Yet, so far, President Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation. Needless to say, this means it will be rather difficult to blame "big-spending" Democrats if the economy continues to sputter.

This article originally appeared on National Review Online on August 8, 2002.

[Wyatt's Torch]

You sure you have the right CATO? They are a libertarian outfit and are by no means "for Clinton". They are just making a comparison of a known liberal to a self-professed conservative.

[Pining_4_TX]

Bush didn't write any of these spending bills, did he?

NO, but he signed them all and didn't fight against them either. Bush is all gung-ho for spending. Sometimes I think Gore is using mind control on him.

[lavaroise]

Someone in his inner circle needs to come up a with a "big-idea" on the economic front and he needs to pull a Reagan and go directly to the American people to sell it so much that Daschle has no choice but to pass it.

However Bush makes the mistake of looking for really progressive ideas at times. He should look back at older bolder ideas indeed, like Reagan's. He simply does not get that there is no messianic idea out there except the ones which keep away such ideas from ever reaching power status. The tax reform thing should be dealt as a way to insure it to pay for the checks and balances, mindful of checks and balances, and instead of imposing power, protecting powers.

[elcaudillo]

Candidates dished up by the Republicrat Party is rather like playing Russian Roulette, or opening a box of chocolates: you never know what the hell you'll end up with.

Electing Algore(d) would have made the slide into the quicksand just a little quicker instead of drawing the agony out for another decade. Where is our Francisco Franco or Alberto Fujimori when he's needed? It would take something like one of these guys to kick the criminals who entered our country illegally the hell out of here and close the borders to any further immigration! Then he'd have to send the porkbarrel fatcats home to keep them out of the way while an enema was administered to our government and bureaucracy.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

"Ron Paul in 2004"

Yeah, cause that's gonna happen.

[Howie]

If you will remember, Reagan straight to the people with impassioned speeches when he needed to, and Congress was flooded with mail and turned tail several times (like the cowards they are) and did his bidding.

A lot of liberals had great respect for Ronald Reagan even though they disagreed with much of his agenda. Too bad we can't rebuild him and elect him again.

Regards,

[dead]

Bush has been an absolute disaster in the area of spending.

He hasn't been all that hot in the area of respecting the constitution either.

But, hey, at least he kicked some ass in Afghanistan and he routinely tells the UN and the environmentalists to shove it, in polite diplomatic language.

Overall, I'd give him a B minus or a C plus, depending on my mood.

[Thisiswhoweare]

I believe this to be true both form position papers, speeches, and having a some personal knowledge of some of the think tanks and PACS in DC.

From the link: Globalization is Grrrreeaat!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729380/posts

...Opponents of globalization, from the left and from the right, from Ralph Nader to Patrick Buchanan and Jean Marie Le Pen, say "no." Let me now tell you why I say "yes."
- from a speech given by Tom G. Palmer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

Some on the thread go on to argue that they are merely concerned with global trade and try to tie it closely with the 'free trade' arguments, however, they are rather unconvincing. What he presents in the speech is essentially globalization.

The senior fellow goes on to say this about business and their relationship to national economies "Rather than a race to the bottom, what we are seeing is a race to the top." I actually choked laughing.

Tell that to the various industries that have relocated overseas, and trades whose wages have collapsed under various trade agreements. Now, even the corporate headquarters are starting to follow, officers and capital alike in tow.

Our excessive regulations, corporate tax structures, crazy tort laws and more(!) are pumping the E right out of PE. Simply giving whole industries away to foreign countries may feel great to the directors of the multi-national playing the float between Chinese labor and American conume, but it hurts our country. In the final analysis, I am an American as well as conservative. Hard to play the 'free trade' thing when the playing field is so uneven.

Admittedly, the globaloney crowd has infested every major political party, it's just a little harder to pick out in the libertarian camp. I believe all parties fail to make the grade concerning the American economy. BTW, I am a Rebublican, as such voting since the days of Reagan.

[gcruse]

Posted, as one would expect for
an article this old, elsewhen.

[fogarty]

Not all of them. But he certainly signed all of them, didn't he?

[Marie Antoinette]

Yeah, I guess you guys are all correct after all. I think Bush is LIBERAL after all. He wrote all those bills himself and didn't veto anything 'cause he's a LIBERAL.

Clinton fixed all financial woes by raising taxes retro actively and on Social security payments to retirees. Let's all just vote Democrat next time around 'cause Bush isn't conservative enough for everybody here. In fact, why bother to vote at all? Let's just be apathetic hand-wringing conservatives with no clear choice on election day and stay home.

Is that the plan? Am I with you guys? Should I have voted for Gore, or what?

Marie Antoinette's astonished husband.

[plain talk]

Neither do you.

[ForOurFuture]

Hello??? Only Congress can spend $

Hello??? Only the President can sign bills that spend $.

[SupplySider]

"...he gave us the largest tax cut in decades."

Unfortunately, that piddling focus group tax cut is the largest in decades only next to the massive (and nearly identical) tax increases of his father and Clinton. I guess he didn't go with Reagan style cuts because because he had to differentiate himself from Steve Forbes. Or maybe he actually bought the Demo talking point about "fiscal responsibility", aka don't let the taxpayers keep too much.

Bush will now take the blame for the bad economy caused by compromising with Democratic principles, just as his dad did. Maybe if Gore would have been elected, we could have had a real economic conservative in the next cycle. Of course with Gore, we might not have been around for another election cycle.

God bless you Pres. Reagan, I wish you were with us still...

[listenhillary]

Hey check this out. Dimo's have a radically different view of Bush's spending.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/budget2002/mo.pdf

[kayak]

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

[FITZ]

I wish we could find another Reagan.

[Keyes For President]

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later

Ronald Reagan moved the country toward the right incrementally.

He asked for tax cuts, military increases, and social spending cuts, even though moderates and liberals called it "Voodoo Economics." He had to settle for a percentage of what he wanted--he got most of the income tax cuts he asked for and the military increases--but he didn't get the social spending cuts. But he continued to fight for the rest.

[SupplySider]

Great quote, thank you. I love Reagan quotes even if they are being used against me in a discussion :)

If Pres. Bush was getting seventy-five or eighty percent of what Reagan asked for, I would be ecstatic. It's just that what he is asking for is not enough to encourage long term economic growth. I'll take any tax cut, but those vouchers were lame.

I do believe that, unfortunately, when it comes to economics Pres. Bush is similar to his father. He seems mainly interested in "governing", not reforming. Sadly, even if O'Neil goes, I predict he will be replaced by another corporate country club Republican, not anyone like the supply siders Reagan surrouned himself with.

[SupplySider]

Sorry, I meant the rebates, not vouchers.

[SEGUET]

"Bush didn't write any of these spending bills, did he?"

He did sign them though - they like to leave the task of putting intelligent sentences together to someone else.

[SEGUET]

"Did Clinton inherit a mess after BUsh?"

yea

[SEGUET]

"Can he spell V - E - T - O ?"

No - and neither can he.

[SupplySider]

Did Clinton inherit a mess after BUsh?" yea

Then Clinton replicated the Bush economic policies almost to the letter. It was not "The Reagan/Bush years" and "The Clinton years". It was the Reagan years, and the Bush/Clinton years.

[SEGUET]

"....but that is beyond the point. Comparing Clinton to Bush is naive to the utmost."

Then why do you people in this Kool-Aid line continually compare the two - no one gives a crap - it is obviously a method of reaffirming your confirmation of the obvious good nd evil -

and I luv the daily references on this site about "when" Hillary Clinton becomes president - she might or she might not but the neocon's do not have the power to affect that event one way or the other - too much defeatist talk in this Kool-Aid line.

[BluesDuke]

Bush didn't write any of these spending bills, did he?

No, but he seems too often to have forgotten about the veto pen. Not to mention, having wielded it, making it good and plain why said bills deserved to be vetoed and let it be on the gutless wonders' heads.

The road to Damnocratic hell is paved with Republican't good intentions.

[SEGUET]

""Ron Paul in 2004" "

Don't you mean Rue Paul?

[fogarty]

You forget our point. Just because Bush is better than Gore does not mean Bush is the ideal conservative that would bring us back to a Constitutional-based government, which would be wise stewards with taxpayer money. In short, we want him to live up to his very own words when he said when he espoused the belief that the American people are better stewards of the money than the government was.

Is it too much to ask for an honest Republican?

And no, I don't suggest giving up. Not ever. But if Bush proves to be the slow road to the same HELL that Clinton was leading us, it is STUPID to continue voting for him. There are alternatives - and leaders to support who actually give a damn about the Constitution.

[kayak]

One thing to keep in mind ...... we are looking back on 8 years of a Reagan presidency. Bush has been in office less than 2 years, has had a hostile Senate with which to contend, has had the terrorist attacks and the war to deal with, inherited a mild recession, has had these corporate scandals come to light (more legacy of x42?) ...... and he's still accomplished a lot. Not all that we want ..... and I'm sure not all that he had hoped for. But it is not realistic to expect him to have as much to show for after 19 months as Reagan had after 8 years.

As for the tax cut, the rebates were just the beginning. If you'll look back at your pay stubs from last year, there was a tax cut effective in June of 2001. I'm an employer and I could tell the difference in our employees' pay checks as well as my own .... and many of our employees work part-time for us as a second job so they're not exactly in "the wealthiest 1%." It wasn't huge ..... but that was just the first increment.

And, btw, thanks for the civil debate ...... it's a rare thing on FR these days unfortunately ..... and quite worthwhile.

[lavaroise]

"Did Clinton inherit a mess after BUsh?"

yea

I was not talking to you.

[lavaroise]

Then why do you people in this Kool-Aid line continually compare the two - no one gives a crap

No one gives a crap about you

[lavaroise]

neocon's do not have the power to affect that event one way or the other

We are not looking for power.

[WhiteGuy]

Yeah, cause that's gonna happen

You're probably right, wishful thinking.

I guess I'll just stay home.

[WhiteGuy]

Talk is cheap.

With an election 2 months away, he had to start giving his core supporters something to talk about.

Bush also says repeatedly (including during the speech today) that the money spent in Washington is not the government's money ..... it's the people's money.

bush does not believe this, no one in washington believes this. If they did they would repeal the income tax and give us back our money.

bush2 is a big government politician, thats all he'll ever be.

[Moby Grape]

You are right, they left out the REAL problem, which is Congress, where the Libertarian Party doesn't have snow ball's chance in hell of controlling...so as usuall, the LP (with Cato assistance) attacks republicans stupidly thinking this will usher them into main stream political influence....maybe their national canidate can get up to 6% of the vote.

[WhiteGuy]

the LP (with Cato assistance) attacks republicans stupidly thinking this will usher them into main stream political influence....

Here's a question.......

Are you satisfyed with the actions of our elected officials over the past 2 years?

Attacking republicans? The republicans deserve to be attacked when they behave like socialist democrats.

[plain talk]

Bingo. You're right. There's a lot of people, many of them libertarians, hanging around whining and wringing their hands but haven't a clue on what to do about it. With 1% of the vote they're irrevelant politically.

I'm more interested in specific tactics and strategies to defeat these liberal / socialists. Bush is really a great asset to the cause when he speaks his mind from the heart. I think he's over controlled. I think he's getting bad advice from overly cautious staffers. Also - Bush can only do so much. The real problem is the gutless republicans in Congress. I have no solution other than over time, changing them out, one by one, with conservatives that have spines, that can communicate effectively and that can win votes.

This involves a serious organized grass roots recruitment process like the Democrats engage in. We need tough SOBs that can charm the socks off the sheeple and independents and soccer mom's. The Republicans are about 40-8 years behind. It's like a new ball team going up against the Yankees in the 50's & 60's. This will take many, many years IMHO.

[Keyes For President]

One thing to keep in mind ...... we are looking back on 8 years of a Reagan presidency. Bush has been in office less than 2 years, has had a hostile Senate with which to contend, has had the terrorist attacks and the war to deal with, inherited a mild recession, has had these corporate scandals come to light (more legacy of x42?) ...... and he's still accomplished a lot. Not all that we want ..... and I'm sure not all that he had hoped for. But it is not realistic to expect him to have as much to show for after 19 months as Reagan had after 8 years.

Ronald Reagan inherited double digit inflation, unemployment, a weakened military and a country that was going in the wrong direction. Carter left us with a "Malaise."

In two years President Reagan turned the direction of the country around. The fruits of his policy decisions of the first two years (income tax cuts, indexing rates to inflation, military increases, etc.) were seen in the next six.

Bush has been giving the Democrats much of what they want, enacting their agenda. In return for all his "compromise", what has he gotten? Nothing. They won't even confirm his judicial nominations!

He's not implementing Reagan's strategy of taking 75% of what you asked for and fighting for the rest--the Democrats are using that on him.

Regards,