[George W. Bush]

Bush I broke his tax pledge in order to get some much needed budgetary concessions from congressional Democrats. His broken pledge helped balance the budget, and helped fully realize the Reagan economic recovery. Thinking challenged right wingers failed to understand what was happening, and allowed themselves to be led away from the GOP by the Democrats, and in fact, handed the bragging rights to the combined efforts of Reagan and Bush I, plus the greatest economic boom in recent history, to William Jefferson Clinton.

This is some really bizarre spin. I have to admit, I've never heard it spun this way. But then, I never liked or trusted Spook Daddy. I actually like the present Bush much better as things have turned out.

I'm not sure exactly where you get this interpretation of economic policy. I don't think I've ever read this before, even here at FR.

So your position that Bush lied to us and broke his no-new-taxes pledge was actually a Good Thing? That campaign promises should be broken whenever they like? That their word is meaningless?

If so, why should we ever vote again?

I think we have to hold them accountable. When they promise something over and over and over and over (like Bush I did), then our ability to keep them accountable will disappear if we vote for willful dissemblers.

The biggest problem with your theory is that the voters just don't like blatant liars.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which part of the scenario did you not understand...I can type slower if it helps you.

Are you so naive to believe that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the accelerant behind the economic boom during his presidency?

If you do, then you likewise believe that the recent downturn came about as a result of Bush's economic policies.

In other words, you believe that a multi-gazillion economy turns on a dime.

Clinton's boom was Reagan's and Bush I's boom, Dubya's recession is actually Clinton's.

Now, you may not like the answer, but it does not change the facts.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press
Sunday, October 4, 1998
Sabo Keeps Sober Eye
on Budget Merriment
Written by Bill Salisbury

Families do it every week.

But when the federal government last week finally managed to balance
its budget -- and end a fiscal year with a surplus after a generation of
red ink -- it was treated as a big deal.

President Clinton announced a $70 billion surplus at a White House
ceremony that had all the trappings on a campaign pep rally. On stage
behind Clinton, as he spoke to an enthusiastic Democratic crowd (no
Republicans were invited), was a digital sign that flashed the word
``surplus.''

While Clinton claimed his administration deserved most of the credit for
restoring fiscal discipline to government, he shared some of the glory
with Democratic lawmakers who made tough tax and spending
decisions that helped erase the budget deficits. Among those he singled
out for special praise was Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee in 1993, Sabo, 60,
played a key role in pushing through a package of tax increases and
spending cuts that sharply reduced the deficit. After Republicans won
control of Congress in 1994, he remained a key adviser to the White
House in budget negotiations.

Asked how it felt after years of effort to finally have a budget surplus,
the taciturn Norwegian replied: ``Sort of nice.''

Sort of nice, Martin?

``Well, very nice,'' acknowledged Sabo, a 20-year House veteran from
Minneapolis.

On a day when both parties were vying for credit for the first budget
surplus since 1969, it was refreshing to get Sabo's modest assessment
of the accomplishment.

Balancing the budget is important for keeping the economy growing and
not piling a huge debt on future generations, he said.

But he gently implied that politicians shouldn't risk breaking an arm
when they pat themselves on the back for doing what they were
supposed to do: Manage the budget responsibly.

Clinton claimed he and congressional Democrats laid the groundwork
for balancing the budget when they passed the 1993 deficit-reduction
package.

Republican congressional leaders countered that they deserved the
credit for pushing Clinton into accepting a budget-balancing agreement
last year. ``This is a Republican surplus, and everybody knows it,'' said
Republican National Chairman Jim Nicholson.

Partisanship aside, Sabo said there's plenty of credit to go around,
starting with former President George Bush.

In 1990, Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats who then controlled
Congress, teamed up to put the first big dent in the deficit with a
package of tax increases and spending cuts. Bush paid a high political
price for the agreement because it forced him to break his ``Read my
lips: No new taxes'' promise he made in the 1988 campaign. Angered
by the tax boost, maverick Republicans, led by current House Speaker
Newt Gingrich, turned on Bush, contributing mightily to his defeat at
Clinton's hands in 1992.

Sabo said the 1990 and 1993 deficit-reduction packages took the
biggest steps toward balancing the budget. ``Last year's budget
agreement was not as big as either the '90 or '93 plans in terms of
deficit reduction,'' he said, ``but it was still a very positive act.''

The final step to balancing the budget was relatively painless. Two
years ago, many Democrats warned that it would take draconian cuts in
vital government services to erase the red ink. But because of the
booming economy, Sabo said, we ``were able to do it without a lot of
sacrifice.''

As Democrats and Republicans separately celebrated the first budget
surplus in 29 years, they conveniently overlooked the fact that the
deficits were partly their fault. The Democrats contributed to excessive
spending on the Great Society programs of the 1960s and 1970s, and
the Republicans backed the expensive military buildup in the 1980s.

Now both sides are drooling at the prospect of spending the surplus.
While Clinton says he wants to use the money to ``save Social
Security,'' his administration has proposed a $23 billion spending spree
for ``emergency'' measures. Meanwhile, House Republicans want to
use the surplus for an $80 billion tax cut.

Sabo warned that those spending impulses could jeopardize the
balanced budget. The surplus is largely a product of the booming
economy, and it could shrink or disappear if the economy weakens or
the stock market falls.

``We need to keep our eye on the target and maintain fiscal discipline,''
Sabo said. ``By doing so, we will ensure that Americans will be able to
reap the benefits of the current surplus for years to come.''

You can always count on Sabo to inject a sober note in the midst of a
boisterous celebration.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Partisanship aside, Sabo said there's plenty of credit to go around, starting with former President George Bush."

"In 1990, Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats who then controlled Congress, teamed up to put the first big dent in the deficit with a package of tax increases and spending cuts. Bush paid a high political price for the agreement because it forced him to break his ``Read my lips: No new taxes'' promise he made in the 1988 campaign. Angered by the tax boost, maverick Republicans, led by current House Speaker Newt Gingrich, turned on Bush, contributing mightily to his defeat at Clinton's hands in 1992."

[gatorbait]

The biggest problem with your theory is that the voters just don't like blatant liars

How does this assertion square with two Clinton terms, Perot and the current crop of Democrats running now?