-Caveat Lector- -----Original Message----- From: Howard Rothenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.republica n,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-lim Date: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:46 PM Subject: [CCNN] Even The Liberal Washington Post Call's Clinton a Do-Nothing President >President Do-Nothing > >By Robert J. Samuelson > >Wednesday, January 3, 2001; Page A17 >http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11338-2001Jan2?language=printer > >The Clinton paradox is this: Rarely has a president so dominated the >public stage and so little affected the public agenda. His central >failure lay not in what he did -- which wasn't much -- but in what he >deliberately avoided. As the first baby boomer president, he had a >historic opportunity to prepare for his own generation's >retirement. The task was to redraw the political compact between >workers and retirees by modernizing Social Security and >Medicare. Clinton didn't try, and worse, he consistently obstructed >others in both parties who did. > >A lot happens in eight years. Clinton can be fairly judged only on >what he changed -- or might have. Does anyone honestly believe he >caused the drop in crime? As for the economic boom, it was largely >self-propelled. Clinton's main contribution was to stand clear. The >story is the same for the surprising budget surpluses. Two events >beyond Clinton's making (or Congress's proved decisive: the end of the >Cold War, which justified deep defense cuts; and the boom, which >produced an unexpected tax windfall. > >Here are some instructive numbers. In fiscal 2000, the federal budget >surplus was $237 billion. Meanwhile, defense spending dropped from 5 >percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (national income) from >1992 to 2000. At present income levels, that represents about a $200 >billion annual saving. The Congressional Budget Office has similarly >put the surprise tax windfall at about 2 percent of GDP, another $200 >billion. > >Elsewhere, Clinton mostly tinkered with government. He expanded tax >relief for the working poor by increasing the earned income tax >credit. This was good. But he also effectively destroyed the Tax >Reform Act of 1986, and that was bad. (The 1986 law simplified taxes >by lowering rates and reducing special breaks. Clinton raised rates >and increased tax breaks -- now called "targeted tax cuts." Taxes >became more complex and capricious.) Some trumpeted Clinton >achievements depended on Republican congressional support -- the North >American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, welfare "reform" and the >agreement to admit China to the World Trade Organization. History will >judge these and other presidential efforts, including Clinton's >attempt to mediate peace in the Mideast. > >Presidential activism isn't an automatic virtue. Clinton's modest >record might, in some circumstances, amount to wise >self-restraint. But his resolute refusal to deal intelligently with >Social Security and Medicare constitutes an unpardonable lapse. As a >nation, we rarely have a chance to defuse major future problems. The >impending retirement of the baby boom generation provided just such an >opportunity. > >We already know much of what we need to know: that the over-65 >population will soon balloon; that Social Security and Medicare >already represent 40 percent of non-interest federal spending; and >that this spending must, with present benefits, rise dramatically. > >We also know that Social Security and Medicare have evolved well >beyond their original purpose as a safety net for the needy >elderly. They have become a public subsidy for retirement, although >many retirees are increasingly healthy and wealthy. Finally, we know >that the retirement subsidies come mostly from the taxes of workers >who consist heavily of retirees' children and grandchildren. > >Questions -- economic, social and moral -- arise. Might high >retirement benefits harm the economy or crowd out other important >government spending? If not all promised benefits are affordable, >would it be fair -- sometime in the future -- to cut them abruptly? If >benefits are affordable, is it morally defensible for older and >wealthier retirees to be so heavily subsidized by younger and often >poorer workers? > >The obvious need was to temper the predictable pressures: to raise >eligibility ages slowly to reflect longer life expectancy; to trim >(but not eliminate) benefits for higher-income retirees; to enact >Medicare cost-sharing measures that encourage the prudent use of >health care. The broader need was to make it safe politically to >discuss these issues without being portrayed as an ogre who loathed >grandparents. > >The circumstances for this conversion could not have been more >favorable, especially in Clinton's second term. The country was >enjoying an economic boom. The president was articulate and understood >the issues. As a Democrat, his loyalty to Social Security and Medicare >-- created by Democratic presidents and Congresses -- was >unassailable. He did not have to fear losing reelection. And more than >a decade remained until the oldest baby-boomers hit 65 in 2011, >allowing a fair warning period for changes. > >But Clinton would have none of it. He appointed -- and ignored -- >bipartisan commissions (one on "entitlement reform" in his first term >and another on Medicare reform in his second). In 1995, congressional >Republicans bravely proposed overhauling Medicare. Instead of opening >a debate, Clinton inaccurately denounced the Republicans for trying to >destroy Medicare. His own rhetoric ("save Social Security first") and >proposals (a new Medicare drug benefit) went in precisely the opposite >direction: an uncritical expansion of retirement benefits. Some new >benefits may be justified, but not without curbing the old. > >Clinton's motive may be no more complicated than this: Good politics >consists of making the middle-class elderly ever-more dependent on >government. But his unwavering attitude demolishes the argument that >the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment prevented him from pursuing his >genuine agenda. Clinton's failure marks his presidency as >self-interested and small-minded. The failure also stereotypes, >perhaps unfairly, the entire baby boom generation (to which this >writer belongs) as stupendously selfish, being willing to burden its >children with any amount of taxes to embellish its retirement. > >The reason impeachment and Lewinsky loom so large in the Clinton era >is that there was so little else. He engaged, entertained and >enraged. He was full of himself and full of talk. He had an amazing >ability to outmaneuver his adversaries and gain short-term political >advantage. But all the noise and action merely highlight the larger >contradiction. He was always on the move but rarely going anywhere. He >was mostly a do-nothing president. > > > >) 2001 The Washington Post Company > > > > > But if the watchman sees the sword coming and > does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and > the sword comes and takes the life of one of > them, that man will be taken away because of > his sin, but I will hold the watchman > accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV) >-------------------------------------------------- > >In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section >107, any copyrighted work in this message >is distributed under fair use without profit >or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. >http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > >Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by >the 105th U.S. Congress this letter >cannot be considered "spam" as long >as it includes: >1) contact information and, >2) the way to be removed from future mailings > >----------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
