Posted on 03/28/2002 9:35:18 AM PST by libber-tarian
I recently wrote an article in which I referred to Bill Clinton as a shallow man, and was asked to explain myself by a reader who went on to claim that Bill Clinton "righted the wrongs of active exclusion, willful ignorance, and offensive pity" and "[led] the nation through its longest period of peacetime expansion of economic, social, and individual opportunity."
What I've never understood about the Clinton apologists is that they apparently value talk over action. Other than make speeches filled with feel-good rhetoric, what did Bill Clinton actually do? People may have felt comforted by his words, believed that he cared about them and felt their pain, but in the end, all of Clinton's talk amounted to nothing.
Whenever I talk to supporters of Bill Clinton, I ask them to list the things he did. Most people can't name a single thing, and instead credit him with presiding over an expanding economy, as though coincidence--the dumb luck of having his presidency aligned with the business cycle--somehow proves that he caused it to happen. But what did he do that was so beneficial to the economy? For that matter, what actions did he take to "right the wrongs of active exclusion"? Don't ask, don't tell? Hardly the epitome of inclusiveness.
My memory may be failing me, but when I try to recall the achievements of the Clinton presidency, I can name only two of any significance: Welfare Reform and NAFTA. Despite the fact that neither of these bills originated from the Clinton Administration, I do give him credit for signing them; most Democrats would not have signed either bill. On the other hand, neither of these bills could pass Congress until the Republicans took over in 1994. So I guess the real achievement of the Clinton presidency was scaring enough people during his first two years in office that he put the Senate and the House of Representatives in the hands of the Republicans for the first time since 1954. But I doubt the fans of Clinton would celebrate that monumental achievement.
As far as the economy goes, there is no doubt that Bill Clinton presided over a favorable economy and a remarkable expansion in the stock market. But remember that most of this expansion was due to the rise of the Internet and the resulting speculation on Internet stocks. Remember when the economy started to go south? That's right, just when the Internet bubble burst. Al Gore's attempt to take credit for inventing the Internet notwithstanding, nobody in their right mind would claim that the Clinton Administration was somehow responsible for the Internet boom.
But if you insist on crediting Bill Clinton with the rise of the stock market, then you must also blame him for the "irrational exuberance" that led to its collapse. You must therefore also blame him for the recession. Otherwise, you're crediting him for handing out the drinks at the party and blaming his successor--the guy who has to clean up the mess--for everyone's hangover the next day.
Getting back to my claim that Bill Clinton is a shallow man, it seems to me that someone who squanders an opportunity to achieve greatness and instead uses his power for nothing more than the satisfaction of his own wants and needs is shallow. Bill Clinton is pathologically self-absorbed, which is why he constantly found himself bungling into scandal after scandal.
Now, one may scream that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down Bill Clinton; even if you believe that nonsense, you have to wonder why Bill Clinton went out of his way to hand his enemies so much ammunition on such a regular basis. And when I say scandal, I'm not even thinking about the "lying under oath" thing, which Clinton supporters dismiss as inconsequential. I'm talking about other serious stuff, all of which is well-known to people who were paying attention, but most of which was underreported due to the media's focus on the more salacious--and therefore media-friendly--Clinton scandals.
If you'll recall: Under Bill Clinton, the White House became a glorified motel, where the Lincoln Bedroom was rented out to contributors who coughed up enough dough. Military secrets ended up in the hands of the Chinese, who laundered money that ended up in the hands of the Democratic National Committee just in time for Clinton's re-election campaign. Al Gore was dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. When Enron's Ken Lay was staying in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton Administration, Enron came to ask the federal government to underwrite foreign loans on 20 different occasions; on 19 of those 20 occasions, the Clinton Administration said yes, to the tune of $2 billion dollars. And let us not forget about selling presidential pardons to drug-runners and fat-cat tax-cheat felons on the lam in Europe. Or the looting of White House furniture for their new home, which is unfortunately located in my home state. And all that's without even getting into Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, or the perjury scandal.
Bill Clinton is a low-life thief, a petty swindler, and a smooth-talking scam artist more suited for Tammany Hall than the White House. But I will admit that Bill Clinton was a man of action, as long as that action involved greasing his palms (or anything other body part for that matter) or furnishing his house. Somehow, Bill Clinton found the time to conduct all of that "business", but he was too busy to take Osama bin Laden when the Sudanese government offered to hand him over to us in 1996. Think about it: we wouldn't be chasing bin Laden around the globe right now if Clinton had focused a little more on taking care of the threats against us and a little less on figuring out every conceivable way that he could cash in on his power or use it to get women.
Which reminds me...as far as giving Clinton credit for presiding over a time of peace, what kind of peace was it? During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured. It seems to me that it's very easy to maintain the illusion of peace by ignoring the dangers that surround us. You may look back fondly at the 1990s as a time of peace, but it was a peace during which we relaxed while our enemies were getting stronger and preparing to annihilate us. That's a pretty shallow peace if you ask me.
Bill Clinton is shallow because he spoke often of his convictions but did nothing to realize them. He's shallow because he was given remarkable gifts and the opportunity to do great things with them, yet he achieved nothing substantial. In the end, his presidency amounted to little more than talk and corruption. He rarely took any action unless it somehow benefitted him. But whenever action mattered for the good of the nation, Bill Clinton was nowhere to be found. And that is why the man who spent the final days of his presidency fretting about his legacy will find it to be recorded quite accurately by history: Bill Clinton is a shallow, failed man.
MurryMom bump...where did you go?
Guess you had to rush for treatment from your PEST provider.
PEST providers, being the good liberals they are will take time from their Saturdays to take your money.
Do not worry...given a little bit of time us taxpayers will be footing the bills for your 'treatment'.
GREAT POST. Sums up the squandered and scandalous Clinton presidency quite nicely. Thanks.
Bill left the reviewing stand when he was first elected, before the first inaugural parade had finished in order to sign the partial birth abortion bill so the feminists would be repaid for helping him get elected.
So, it does not bother you that the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, used a young girl in the manner he did, an employee in the Oval Office, walked off scott free and left her life in a shambles simply for the sake of his brief puerile jollification? This does not speak to you of something missing - forgetting all the weird deaths and other shady Clinton dealings? - President Bush has had a terrorist attack just a few months into his presidency (set up by bin Laden who Bill Clinton refused several times, not to mention refusal to deal with any terrorist attack on his watch). The WORLD TRADE CENTER was destroyed in this attack, making the economic recovery under Bush miraculous given the depth of the devastation. PROVE what you say. I know you'll tell me to PROVE what I say. Back at you.
I assume you voted for Kerry. If so, congratulations for obeying Osama bin Laden, the best friend a leftie ever had. I decided if bin Laden was telling me who to vote for, I'd for dern sure be voting the opposite. The fact I
was voting for President Bush anyway made it easy. You see,
bin Laden's dream was to wake up on the day after the election with one lone little state blinking red; then he could sic his minions on that one little state. He awoke to his worst nightmare - we were united in our redness - all except for the few, the proud the Kerryites and the Clintonites.
Clinton proposed major net spending increases. I clearly remember Laura Tyson and Leon Panetta on Meet the Press in the first term arguing AGAINST a balanced budget. Spending control came with the Republican congressional landslide and the Contract with America. Clinton did not improve the economy by cutting spending, but I'm glad to see you on record that reducing federal spending is a component of creating a better economy.
Why is cutting taxes on lower income citizens a benefit for the economy and cutting taxes on upper income folks a detriment? I don't follow you. I can see why you might like the idea from the Marxist point of view of the morality of income redistribution, but what does this have to do with creating a good economy?
Regarding tax rate increases for the rich, can you tell me how that is supposed to help the economy? Reagan's tax rate cuts in the top brackest produced tax revenue increases from that group.
If you think upper tax rate increases were great under Clinton, will you admit that they were great under Bush Sr.? He and Clinton raised taxes by nearly identical amounts.
I don't see how proping up a thug in Haiti, letting Saddam violate the Gulf war cease fire and steal tens of billions from the UN, and killing more Bosnian civilians from politically safe high altitude bombing than were found to have been killed in the "genocide" helped our economy in any way. if you can explain it to me, please do.
There was a strong economy while Clinton was in office. I have yet to have it explained to me by anyone how Clinton created or even helped that, other than continuing the push for free trade that Bush Sr. began. I am very sincere in asking you to please explain HOW Clinton created his economic miracle. You can say "Little Dumbya" just as I could say "Slick willy" (which I never do), but that's not any kind of an argument.
A republican congress did that not Clinton.. Deficit spending was fought tooth and nail << FOR IT >> by democrats.. A republican congress had to DRAG......... most all democrats including Clinton to reduce deficit spending.. they did.. the economy rebounded.. NO, President sets public tax initiatives or taxes(the people) he merely signs what congress and the Senate did already.. or not.. The President is allocated money by congress to head the Executive branch.. NOT the other way around.. Actually, presidents don't reduce taxes either its congress that does it.. All the president can do is Veto.. or sign already passed legislation..
Thank's for this post libber-tarian.
Thank you! It is an article of faith in this country that Clinton created a great economy. No one, and I mean no one, can say how.
Rubin is the only one who tries. He says raising taxes cut the deficits and restored confidence, which reduced interest rates which spurred the economy with cheaper loans for expansion.
The only problem is, long term rates rose under Clinton until the week of the Republican congressional landslide. Besides, Reagan's tax rate cuts produced tax revenue increases. Clinton'ss tax rate increase did not cut the deficit. Even if it had, there is NO historical correlation between lower deficits and lower interest rates.
Clintonomics was voodoo economics. I defy anyone to explain how Clinton's policies could have or did help the economy. There were some hurricanes during Clinton's term, too.I guess that means he was responsible!
By the way I assume you know all this, but since i don't believe MurryMom will try to answer any of these points I had to get out my rant anyway.
You seem to forget that from 1995 the congress and the senate were controlled by republicans. This majority forced lovable bill to sign a balance budget ammendment. Then our old economy soared, and thus it seemed to give him credit where none is due.
bttt
Bump & Ping
"Clinton-Gore Economic Miracle"?
Oh, you mean the recession that Clinton-Gore created.
Yeah, Dubya benefited by that because he turned it around within his first few months.
If Clinton hadn't emboldened the terrorists by NOT responding to terror attacks during his stay in office, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
THAT is Clnton's legacy, teror attacks, oral sex, recession, and self-serving policies.
The Rubinian Candidate By STEVE FORBES August 16, 2004; Page A12
Democrat partisans and some Pollyannaish pundits and CEOs are positing that John Kerry would be just fine and dandy for the economy. Look at Bill Clinton, these folks chime; he gave us eight terrific years of bull markets and prosperity -- and he was a Democrat initially distrusted by most Wall Streeters and corporate types. One can understand the Democrats putting out such spin like this in an election year. But these other "what-me-worry-about-John Kerry?" types should stop inhaling illegal substances and start smelling the coffee: When it comes to taxes -- and a lot of other things -- the differences between George Bush and John Kerry are profound. In fact, this partisan openly postulates that the all-too-real possibility of a Kerry presidency is poleaxing the equity markets.
Take taxes. Sen. Kerry has openly stated his desire to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for "the rich." Unlike the original JFK, this JFK can't grasp that taxes are a price and a burden. The exactions we pay on our incomes are the price we pay for working. The levies we fork over for profits and capital gains are the price we pay for success and for taking risks that pan out. The idea behind tax cuts is very simple: Lower the burden on such good things as productive work, risk-taking and success, and you'll get more of them. Every time in American history that we've lowered tax rates on capital and labor, the economy has blossomed.
Kerry-ites are blind to the fact that the resulting prosperity always means more government revenue. Democrats like Sen. John Edwards remain emotionally stuck in 1932 (actually the two Americas today are parasitic trial lawyers and the rest of us). To these folks, hiking taxes on upper-income earners only means fewer baubles for the trophy wives of overpaid executives. The reality: People with high incomes are also predominantly business owners; tax cuts are precisely what helps them grow their businesses and create new jobs, not to mention starting new businesses altogether.
A report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation makes this point clearly. The authors found that "(m)ost of the people in the top 1% of earners are business owners and entrepreneurs, not just high-income individuals with trivial business income on the side." In fact, business owners pay 55% of all income taxes. And how does Sen. Kerry propose to treat these small-business people who create most of our jobs and pay most of our income taxes? Kick them in the teeth with higher taxes.
Raise the capital gains levy? That will mean less risk taking, which in turn will mean fewer new businesses and jobs, and fewer innovations. It will also mean less money for retirement for millions of baby boomers. President Bush's May 2003 reduction in capital gains taxes by 25% is a key reason that stocks have appreciated by more than $2 trillion since then.
Reinstate the full tax on dividends -- and restore double or triple taxation? This will damage capital creation. Hundreds of companies have raised their dividends since that cut was enacted. Scores of companies have initiated these payouts, reversing a decades-old trend in the opposite direction. Microsoft certainly wouldn't have handed its shareholders a $32-billion special dividend under the old tax regime.
Sen. Kerry's proposed tax hike would also hurt corporate accountability and governance. Before 2003, companies had a perfect rationale for sitting on retained profits -- pay them out and most of those profits would go to the tax collector. Naturally, companies used the loot on new ventures that went beyond their managerial expertise. With the low dividend tax, a corporation must justify to its shareholders that it can use the money better than they can.
President Bush, in contrast, wants to make his cuts permanent. He has also proposed creating two new Roth IRA-like savings vehicles that would materially help hardworking Americans create real wealth over time. Alas, the Democrats are afflicted with the Curse of Robert Rubin. They think that Mr. Rubin persuaded Bill Clinton to boost taxes in 1993 and that, while the move was unpopular (it helped cost Democrats control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades), the tax hikes cut the deficit, which, in turn, reduced the "crowding out" of private investment by government borrowing, which, in turn, drove down interest rates. Result: a golden age of prosperity. The lesson: Raising taxes works! For Democrats, this is akin to a drunk hearing the news that more drinking means better health. Unfortunately for the country, Mr. Rubin's nostrums are nonsense. There is no correlation between budget deficits and interest rates. In fact, no sooner did Mr. Clinton sign that tax legislation than interest rates began a relentless climb. The 30-year Treasury bond went from 5.87% to more than 8% in a little over a year. The economy, which had begun a big recovery in the second half of 1992, hit the brakes. The economic growth rate for 1993 was less than it had been the previous year, when President Bush senior was running for re-election and Mr. Clinton was crying, "It's the economy, stupid." It was not until 1996 that the economy surpassed the growth rates it had achieved in the latter half of 1992.
The Curse also ignores the real factors that made the 1990s possible: the virtual elimination of inflation, which was the equivalent of a tax cut, particularly for capital gains; the 29% slash in the capital gains levy in 1997; the virtual elimination of capital gains taxes for most home sales (which triggered a housing boom that's still with us); the moratorium on Internet taxation; welfare reform (which Mr. Clinton twice vetoed and signed only when pollsters told him that his re-election chances would be hurt if he didn't); Nafta, which was a form of tax-cutting; and a new GOP-controlled Congress that would kibosh any more idiotic Clinton initiatives like national health care, and at least for a while, exercised real spending restraint. Being a bond man, Mr. Rubin himself has little understanding of entrepreneurial capitalism and the vital impact of tax incentives and disincentives. No matter. John Kerry and his fellow Democrats are in Robert Rubin's thrall -- tax increases are the economic elixir.
President Bush knows better. His own tax initiatives have helped us enormously; but if the president wants to positively stir the electoral pot, he should follow the advice of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who recently suggested we junk the current tax code and replace it with either a national sales tax or a flat tax. In fact, on Aug. 11 the president himself seemed amenable to the idea. A national sales tax should probably not be enacted until we eliminate the 16th Amendment, which allows Washington to impose income taxes. Otherwise, we'll end up with both. The flat tax needs await no constitutional changes and it would do wonders. Under the plan I proposed several years ago, a family of four would pay no federal income tax on the first $36,000 of income and only 17% on any earnings above that. There would be no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains -- thus, no multiple taxation on the same income. The death tax would be buried once and for all: No taxation without respiration. The economy would then roar ahead -- and so would Washington's revenues.
Make no mistake; the contrasts between Messrs. Bush and Kerry are very, very real. If the Massachusetts senator wins, the U.S. and the world will pay the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic growth and equity values because of the Curse of Robert Rubin. That would be an appallingly high tuition to re-educate John Kerry, if, indeed, he is re-educatable. And if the president does propose terminating the current tax code, well, then you can watch the Kerry-ites really squirm as they realize that an election they thought, with Dewey-esque confidence, was once theirs, slips out of their grasp.
Mr. Forbes is editor in chief of Forbes Magazine and president/CEO of Forbes Inc.
bttt
Thanks!
I am guessing that the nastiness in the 2000 primaries with GW precludes him from a cabinet post, but he never misses a chance to support the president's tax cuts.
Question for MurryMom, wherever you are:
Clinton's whole idea, courtesy of Bob Rubin, was that cutting deficits would cause interest rates to drop. Low interest rates would revive the economy. Right now we have much higher deficits and record low interest rates, lower than under Clinton. How is this possible? And shouldn't the low rates be causing a boom?
Unless someone can explain this I have to conclude that Clintonomics was voodoo economics. It was adopted because it provided a rationale for tax-the-rich political rhetoric.
LOL!
I know what you mean.
In my area, Clintonomics brought about the interesting business practice of hiring people 'full time', and then letting them go as 'temporary employees' right about the time company benefits should kick in.
What that means business wise: The company gets to keep funds/resources that would normally go to your 401K, and their bottom line is helped by that extra little bit, and they don't have to pay out medical expenses or dental.
Along with the assorted things that go along with letting people go right before the 'benefit start' date.
What that brought about afterwards was this: employee loyalty tanked, and the companies started losing money AND employees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.