Right. Pardon my sloppiness.
> >Shrinking the Fed govt. If we define this as
> >spending/GDP, the government hasn't shrunk all that
> >much, if at all.
>
> the article I mentioned used statistics about government _employment_.
I don't recall that qualification in the post, though I do remember the phrase "shrinking govt." Spending is a better indicator of government size. If the government contracts out or turns a direct service into a voucher or transfer payment, government employment decreases but government is more or less as big as ever, in my book.
> >> 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.
>
> why? he hasn't any principles that I can see (except that it's good to
> preserve one's political base). Why would he ever be upset by Gingrich,
> rising in righteous anger the way that Newt did? Or do you mean that the
> GOPsters created Clinton as a right-wing hack? but you'd have to add his
> lack of back-bone to the equation. . . .
Their redefinition of the boundaries also redefined the "center" as where Clinton landed. More important, it's not very fair or precise to nail Clinton as offering "moderate" versions of other policies. You could say the R's HMO regulation is a conservative version of Clinton's health care proposal. The commonalities are too thin to be meaningful. Welfare reform is an important exception.
MBS