It wasn't Reagan or Newtie, but Clinton who made economy hum - REPOST

Fredericksburg.com ^ | 12/09/02 | Mark Shields

[SW6906]

WASHINGTON--In 2002, Rep.- elect Michael Michaud, D-Maine, was a genuine exception among Democratic House candidates: a blue-collar, dues-paying union member who had worked in the paper mill for 28 years, who is pro-life, and who, in a district previously represented by moderate Republicans--won.

All this after Michaud publicly embraced the Man Republicans Love to Hate, former president Bill Clinton.

Here, according to the estimable columnist E.J. Dionne, is what candidate Michaud had to say to Clinton in October before 2,500 Maine citizens in Augusta:

"The country's economy was in the ditch, and you made the hard decisions and turned things around. But the Republicans in Washington could never give you any credit. Oh no. They said it was not Bill Clinton who brought prosperity, it was the House Republicans and Alan Greenspan. Guess what? We still have the House Republicans. We still have Alan Greenspan. And where's the economy? Back in the ditch."

This Michaud fellow is clearly on to something.

For the past decade, there has been a conservative crusade to (a) deny Bill Clinton's policies any credit for the historic prosperity the nation enjoyed during his presidency or (b) deny that those good old Clinton days were really that good at all.

First, when Clinton won the White House, the federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work, and the nation's economic growth rate under the outgoing Republican administration was the lowest in more than half a century.

Clinton introduced his controversial economic plan that raised the income taxes of the richest 1.4 percent of Americans. We immediately heard from the Gloom and Doom congressional Republicans, every one of whom voted against the Clinton plan. House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich predicted, "This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."

What followed is unarguable: creation of more than 22 million new jobs; the nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the lowest unemployment rate among women in 40 years; and the lowest Hispanic and African- American unemployment rates in history.

Faced with a recession that never appeared, Republicans went from assigning blame to denying the improving economic situation. In 1996, the GOP presidential nominee saw the dark side: "[Clinton's] big-government policies slammed on the brakes, starting with the largest tax increase in the history of America. His economic legacy is the Clinton crunch, slow growth, high taxes and stagnating wages."

That November, three out of four voters said they were better off economically than four years earlier, and Clinton became the first Democratic president since FDR in 1936 to win a second term.

Time to switch arguments for the GOP in the face of a booming economy. Former Vice President Dan Quayle spoke for many in his party: "We do have prosperity, but let's give credit where credit is due. Ronald Reagan started the prosperity we have today. George Bush continued it. And Bill Clinton inherited it."

After the federal budget deficit had gone down each of the Clinton years and the cascading tax revenues generated by the prosperity led in 1998 to the first balanced budget in 30 years, Clinton still got no credit.

"The federal government is balancing its budget, thanks to the Republican Congress," said Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Let's be blunt. Bill Clinton gave his political opponents a pistol loaded with his own reckless and unacceptable self-indugence, and then reloaded it on the way out the door with his pardon of the loathsome Marc Rich.

But Mike Michaud was right. Bill Gates is still there. Alan Greenspan is still there. The House Republicans are still there. Ronald Reagan's tax and budget policies are still honored in the White House. The only two things missing are a good economy and Bill Clinton.

MARK SHIELDS is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.

[SW6906]

I'm reposting this at the risk of getting in trouble because I DO NOT agree that this kind of article should not be posted on FR. I was formulating a reply when it got pulled. IMHO, this is EXACTLY the kind of article that we should see posted and discussed on FR. At least that's the way it used to be - an article like this would get posted and we would pick it apart, point by point. THAT is what I'm looking for - what is the argument against these points?

I want someone to defend this and tell me just one exact policy of Clinton's that helped the economy, and I want to see it backed up with statistics. The one made in the article is not supported with data such as how that tax increase raised revenue or spurred growth. It is just stated as the thing that caused the economy to grow without saying how.

Admin: why isn't this article legitimate for discussion?

[azhenfud]

Clinton taught America to live on a line of credit (ie. other's money). The notes have all come due....

[Tijeras_Slim]

My guess is that it was pulled for being a troll post. If a FReeper with bonafides such as yourself posts it for legitimate discussion, there shouldn't be a problem.

[Lil'freeper]

The nineties were the decade of the internet and other than Al Gore inventing the dumb thing, the rat politicans had nothing to do with the technological ingenuity that caused whatever hum Shields thinks he heard.

[far sider]

It wasn't Reagan or Newtie, but Clinton who made economy hum - Mark Shields

The only thing Clinton made to hum was Monica.

[SW6906]

Thanks for the props. I guess I wouldn't care who posted it, the content of the article and the discussion that follows are what is important.

But then, it's not my website.....

[galt-jw]

yeah, I would argue that a union parasite who is socialist to the bone lacks the ability to think, at all.

In case it has gone unnoticed, the financial scandals, the ones where people fradulently doctored the books to cast the appearance of prosperity, were the engine which magnified the huge bubble.

Since it has been proven that the gains under clinton in the stock market and economy WERE nothing more that a bubble, Union Boy would do well to drinking his miller high life and watching wrestling. The reason the idiot is in the shape he is in IS PRECISELY because of klinton, AND ALL socialists in ANY DEGREE like him.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

There's a significant difference between "getting an economy humming" and "getting a hummer".

[SW6906]

"The nineties were the decade of the internet and other than Al Gore inventing the dumb thing, the rat politicans had nothing to do with the technological ingenuity that caused whatever hum Shields thinks he heard."

That is the argument I've used whenever someone says Clinton is responsible for the economic boom that happened on his watch. I also point out that Clinton turned WAAAAY left when he took office and the economy was still sluggish until the Republicans took the House in 1994 and brought him back to the center kicking and screaming. If any credit is to be given, I give it to the Republicans in the House in 1994-95 who reined in Clinton.

But fundamentally, I agree with you: the private sector is what caused the boom, the FedGov just had to stay out of the way.

[aruanan]

Sounds as though Mark Shields is once again doing a little humming for Clinton.

[Bob]

I want someone to defend this and tell me just one exact policy of Clinton's that helped the economy,...

You'll never find anyone who can identify any specifics. Even if you could, they wouldn't have any evidence to back themselves up. Just like this author, they'll assert something and if you disagree, you're just a clinton-hater. (Yes, I am, thank you.)

They all feel that it was the whole clinton economic policy (whatever that was) that did it.

[Always Right]

Interesting that the economic recovery occured before Clinton's policies were introduced and the economic downturn took place before Clinton left office.

[SW6906]

I know what you mean. We can pull up specific statistics from the Reagan years showing how the government reciepts increased following the Reagan tax cuts, how the economy was in the dumps until his policies took effect, etc. The same cannot be done for Clinton (at least I have yet to see it). With Clinton, it's all about feeling that his policies were responsible since he happened to be in office when the boom occurred.

[Hostage]

The article is legitimate for discussion. I have no idea why it was pulled but thanks for reposting it.

I hear more and more liberals spouting the garbage laid out in this article.

My first rebuttal would be to point out that deficits continued to grow and the economy continued to deteriorate from 1992 to 1994 during Clinton's first half term. The Republicans did not get control of the House until January 1995 and that was the first time they held the House in forty years.

As soon as Republicans gained contol of Congress, the economy started to turn around. Their spending cuts and fiscal restraints balanced the budget. Clinton's prior huge tax increases produced more than a balanced budget, they produced budget surpluses that were unnecessary. Republicans argued that the surpluses should be returned to the American people via tax cuts because it was their money.

As far as today's economy. the Bush administration came into being during a recession and they are attempting to pull the economy up through a pro-growth policy. Good luck to them.

But to lavish praise on the Clinton's for a great economy is plainly wrong. They were and still are reckless people who were lucky enough to have a Republican Congress exerting fiscal discipline.

[trebb]

It took Ronnie's strong actions and the first President Bush's at least not doing any great harm, to get the economy cranked and ripe for Clinton when he hit office. He took about 6 years to reverse a 12-year trend for economic growth and spent the last 2 years of his term keeping us in the dark about what he had done to the economy.
Remember how the press and Democrats carped about this President Bush when he told us that the economy was in the dumpster during his campaign.

[wjcsux]

The x42 d*ckhead didn't do a damn thing to get the economy going. If you look closely, the economy was stagnant until the after elections of 94. Mark "Maxi" Shields is just another Toon apologist.

[wayoverontheright]

Time to switch arguments for the GOP in the face of a booming economy. Former Vice President Dan Quayle spoke for many in his party: "We do have prosperity, but let's give credit where credit is due. Ronald Reagan started the prosperity we have today. George Bush continued it. And Bill Clinton inherited it."

If you add up the losses in the late nineties among the Enrons and Global Crossings, the economy probably didn't grow at all in Clinton's last three years. The boom was almost exclusively limited to the tech sector, except for the phenomenal productivity gains the whole economy realized from the tech sector's contributions.

When you ask a dem "WHAT DID HE DO?" the only thing they can point to is the tax increase, to which I ask the follow up, "HOW CAN REMOVING MONEY FROM THE ECONOMY HELP THE ECONOMY?"

[afz400]

Largely forgotten is the "peace dividend" that Clinton inherited from Reagan/Bush. It's a piece of cake to have a good domestic economy if you can reduce military spending. Of course, Clinton completely neglected the military and now Bush has the thankless task of rebuilding it.

[RckyRaCoCo]

It was Clintons job to say "Irrational Exuberance" when the markets became overblown(among other things)which led in many ways to the economic "hangover" we've had for the last 2 years. He was more concerned with his legacy(and his pleasure)than letting the truth be known. That will be his legacy.