No. EITC is $30b annual, not all of which derives from Clinton's '93 increase. Affirmative action and 'support for low-wage unionization struggles' hardly registers on the radar screen. If you could quantify these, I doubt they would be of any important size. The boom is much too big to attribute to these things. You could say they helped, such as they were.
" . . . Greenspan did not increase the minimum wage, expand the EITC, support unionization drives and contract wins, fund infrastructure, defend Davis-Bacon wage levels, or support a range of other initiatives that contributed to that lower end wage growth. . . . "
mbs: Clinton didn't fund infrastructure either. He and all the limousine liberal weenies fought the highway bill, the biggest, and not particularly the most well-designed piece of infrastructure funding.
Greenspan & Clinton don't deserve credit for a different reason: in their view, the boom of the past two years is excessive. Too dangerous because of the inflation threat. Hence the Fed's posture of leaning against the boom -- admittedly not too too hard -- possibly (if you believe their own premises and goals) giving rise to current signs of a slow-down.
Now is the time for a Campaign of Bitter Recrimination against the Fed and all its camp-followers for trying to take away jobs from those who gained them in the move from the "natural" unemployment rate of 5.5% to the current rate.
mbs