Clinton a Republican?

[Max Sawicky]

> . . .
> In today's  L.A. TIMES, there's an excellent article by Bruce J. Schulman,
> who argues that Clinton's "major achievements -- reforming welfare,
> balancing the budget, shrinking the federal government -- completed the
> work that President Ronald Reagan began and that hard-line conservatives
> like House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) could never have
> achieved on their own." (Once I find this article on-line, I'll post it to
the list.)> . . .

I know I haven't deconstructed JD's previous,
lengthy riposte to my challenge re: drawing
a line from Keynes to 70's hyperinflation,
but that post is at work and I'm home
at the moment.

This litany of negative achievements by Clinton
is mistaken in a couple of respects.  Welfare
reform is not one of them.  But as to the others --

Clinton did not balance the budget by any great,
deliberate act.  Neither did congress.  Most of
the improvement in the deficit/surplus stemmed
from unforeseen economic growth.  Even today,
the numbers wonks cannot explain why tax
revenue has been as high as it was.  the main
thing Clinton 'did' in this vein was raise taxes
on the rich, something the Repubs would not have done.
A good part of this increase has since been taken
back, which Clinton also facilitated.  The capital
gains cave-in is a better example of something the
R's might not have been able to do without Clinton.

Shrinking the Fed govt.  If we define this as
spending/GDP, the government hasn't shrunk all that
much, if at all.  I don't have the numbers in front
of me.  As a share of GDP it is not very different
(and in fact has been very stable for twenty years
or so).  So there is no unique conservative achievement
here.  A better case is that in a period of rising
income, Clinton precluded what we might have been
able to expect -- a larger public sector.


> Clinton's been protecting us from the Gingriches and Chernoweth's of the
> world. But he also helped create them and their power. He instituted "more
> moderate" versions of their program. But the definition of "moderate" has
> shifted far to the right, with Clinton leading the way.

You could also say they created him.


> . . .
> Some of the left's lesser evilism on this question seems more and more
> reminiscent of a discussion in Phillip K. Dick's MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE.
> It's about an imaginary world where Hitler won WW2. People in a restaurant
> in that part of the US that wasn't occupied by either Japan or Germany are
> discussing the succession issue: now that it's pretty clear that Hitler is
> going to die, who will succeed him? who would be better, Himmler or
> Goebels? maybe this guy Heydrick?

As I said previously, if the R's get veto-proof majorities
in Congress, you ain't seen nothin yet.


>
> Now that that's all said, I want to reiterate: I'm sorry. I'm very sorry,
> No-one could be sorrier than I am. I have sinned...

Here I can't disagree.  Mistakes were made.

MBS