Recycling mistakes of the past
December 2, 2008 - 6:39am.
The unbounded joy from the Democratic side of the political universe these days is tempered by economic realities of a faltering nation.
America is in trouble -- deep trouble -- and we are not going to get out of it by simply accepting everything that Barack Obama does as gospel and blaming everything that's happened on George W. Bush.
Yes, Bush is a bad President, perhaps one of the worst in history, but the many problems that face this nation have been decades in the making and much of the relief that we see as Bush's administration comes to an end follows what many -- myself included -- felt at what we hoped was the end of a national nightmare when the Clintons packed up to leave the White House.
The greatest damage that Bush may have done to this nation is the resurrection of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The man who turned the White House into his personal pleasure palace, who used the power of the federal government to destroy his enemies and who decried the "politics of personal destruction" while honing it into an art form is redeemed in the eyes of those weary of the extremes of the Bush Administration.
Like so many, I'm happy to see Bush go. But unlike those with short memories, I haven't forgotten the shame Bill Clinton brought upon the Presidency by his behavior or his own lack of honesty with the American people. Let's not forget that Clinton lost his law license for lying under oath.
We hear a lot of talk about how Bill Clinton left us a nation free of debt. That's not quite what happened. The deficit was reduced during his Presidency but it came under pressure from a Republican Congress -- the one put into power by voters after Clinton stormed into office in 1992 with grandiose big-spending ideas like National Health Care.
Clinton, with the approval of a Democratic Congress, raised taxes in 1993. He also presented budgets with big increases in federal spending. The deficit soared to $200 billion in two years.
Voters rejected his policies overwhelmingly in the 1994 mid-term elections and sent the Democratic leadership of Congress packing.
With a Republican-controlled Congress serving as watchdog, Clinton moderated his policies and went from liberal to centrist. But many of the spending cuts that occurred in his Presidency came at the insistence of a Republican Congress that controlled the federal budget during the final six years of his Presidency.
Technically, the federal budget was balanced by 1998 -- four years after Republicans assumed control of Congress. During those four years, the GOP congress cut $600 billion from the budgets Clinton submitted. But even that so-called "balanced budget" is subject to debate since Uncle Sam keeps two sets of books.
Two years later, George W. Bush came into office and inherited a Republican Congress that forgot all about fiscal restraint. They helped Bush build the largest federal bureaucracy in history in a pork-barrel spending spree that remained unabated until voters tossed the GOP out of power in Congress in 2006.
So the Republicans share a good deal of the blame for putting the country back into debt afteR helping balance the books 10 years ago. But many Democrats also voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq and put this country into a seemingly-endless, budget-draining, war. Many Democrats voted to establish the huge Department of Homeland Security that has become the federal government's black hole for spending. Many Democrats voted to take away the rights of Americans with the USA Patriot Act. Many Democrats enjoyed the pork barrel largess that bloated the federal budget and the deficit.
Barack Obama and his team of recycled team of Washington insiders will not balance the budget. They will increase the federal deficit with massive spending programs that they hope will jump start a faltering economy.
It may work. It may not. This is not the post-depression era of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is not the Civil War era of Abraham Lincoln. This is modern day America where Wall Street hiccups and the world convulses. Change means taking bold, new innovative steps to fight the problem. Change does not come by repackaging those who helped contribute to the past excesses that helped create today's problems.
George W. Bush is a bad President. So was Bill Clinton. And George H.W. Bush. And Ronald Reagan. And Jimmy Carter. And so on.
Each, along with those who served in in their respective administrations, and those in Congress during their terms, are co-conspirators in building an American house of cards that is toppling around us.
And now, many of those same people are back in positions of power in a new government that is supposed to change things and save us from the past mistakes they helped create.
Technorati Tags: - Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Funny, the state of the Real
Funny, the state of the Real Estate market, you know the industry that you lobbied for in DC for years, seems to play no part in your rant. Why is that? Denial is a river running through your backyard.
Get your facts right. I
Get your facts right. I never lobbied for the real estate industry. I ran the Political Programs Division of the National Association of Realtors for five years. The Government Affairs Division did the lobbying. I just bought the candidates. The lobbyists took over after that.
I like the title: recycling
I like the title: recycling mistakes of the past.
Let's look at those mistakes.
Under Bill Clinton, the S&P 500 rose an average of 15.2% a year. No Republican President has come within 4% of that. Under Bush, the market lost money.
Under Bill Clinton, crime fell. Including an outstanding 40 percent drop in the murder rate and a 33 percent drop in the violent crime rate during his two terms in office. Under Bush, it rose again. Because he cut COPS spending.
When we went into Kosovo under Clinton in 1999, Republicans said the following:
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." (Tony Snow)
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag" (Senator Don Nickles (R-OK))
"For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce." (Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)).
Yet there were no US combat casualties. I don't need to tell you the mess and whining we have over Iraq, thanks to the Republicans.
A buoyant economy. Falling crime. No wasteful combat deaths. This is what a Republican, you, call 'mistakes'. And you wonder why you lost...
Who are you calling a
Who are you calling a Republican buster? Those are fighting words around here. I've never been a registered member of any political party and I've never, ever, voted a straight party ticket. Haven't voted for a Republican in at least a decade.
No wasteful combat deaths?
No wasteful combat deaths? What about all of those Serbs slaughtered by US air power? Wait, I forgot! Clinton had a hall pass from NATO (correction: not the UN), so those don't count, do they?
The Serbian army withdrew in good order - battered, but in good order; not a disintegrating, panic-stricken mob like the Iraqi army did in two wars. And without significant loss of men or equipment.
Falling crime? Crime rates tend to be cyclic, according to the FBI. I think it had little to do with the mythic 100K cops on the streets
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Actually Clinton did in fact
Actually Clinton did in fact add more police officers, problem was they were mostly for DARE and war on drug temporary task forces.
The Clinton funds were temporary and depts could cut DARE positions 1st if faced with cut backs, or just summarily dropped the created positions when the funds ran dry.
Other funds, on a smaller scale, were used for Federal .gov run multi agency task forces that usually focused on Federal drug cases. Local cops were 'rented' to help with Fed agency business. Like with DARE, these stopped happening when the $$ ran out.
Giving Clinton credit for cutting all crime, or whatever, is a stretch, but he did provide some extra cash for cops who were mostly subservient to a Federal need.
IK thought I was paying
IK thought I was paying pretty close attention during the period 1993-1996. Turns out I had no idea what was happening. I recall Clinton going up to the Hill (not physically, but in the DC sense of motion) with a very broad and mostly centrist package which then received virtually unanimous opposition from the Republicans. The insistence of Bob Dole and others that no Republican vote for any Clinton proposal that might enhance a re-election run (and thus stymie Dole's own White House ambitions; and let's not forget that Phil Gramm was still lurking hyena like in those same wings) was a major reason Clinton had to shift leftward. He had to have votes from folks like Ron Dellums and Barney Frank to pass anything because he had to win virtually every Democratic vote in both chambers of Congress.
The 1994 victory gave him the opportunity to move back to the center and cemented his re-election. Indeed, at every turn he out-GOPed Newt and his buddies and cemented his hold on the DC cabal. Yeah, the Republicans voted for things in droves between '95 and '97 but only after they tried and failed to lurch the nation to the irrational Right.
And as for that lie under oath, the assertion rests entirely on the premise that Bill Clinton's motivation in dallying about with an intern was her gratification. So if you assume he was a selfless lover, okay. I, for one, don't. And it makes a very large, juducially imposed, difference!
Your claims are a nice
Your claims are a nice partisan slant but I'm afraid that's all it is -- a slant. I was in Washington during the Clinton adminisration and covered both the White House and Congress. I was there. Where were you?
You hit the jackpot,
You hit the jackpot, jackpot. One of the reasons I went online was to try and figure out what the Republicans were complaining about. My prospective was wrong as I figured the GOP would never change their platform and I was wrong. I backed out of the GOP but did not join up with the Democrats. I tried, through Perot, to get back to the limited government but that too failed.
I know exactly why the GOP lost and the millions of voters like me who pulled our support and financial help away from a delusioned neo conservative agenda. Tom Delay was at the top of my reasons for leaving the party.
Malcolm, who welcomes you
We have changed the oil in
We have changed the oil in the ole jalopy we call our Republic in hopes of better mileage and longevity.
It's a goddamn shame we had the sense to put in a new filter but are forced to pour in used oil from eight years ago. HACK!
Interesting Contradictions
Interesting Contradictions
I find it interesting that you cite the republican congress as being responsible for Clinton's balancing of the budget, while ignoring that a republican president and a republican congress brought about the greatest budget deficit in history. So, for the sake of logical consistency, are you ready to lay blame on the republican congress now?
Citing the war won't work as a special exemption... it's just one more way to spend money we don't have...
The economic growth of the 90s was produced by technological advance during a time of peace. Republicans didn't create that.
Did you not read the entire
Did you not read the entire column? Obviously, you missed, or didn't understand, this paragraph:
I can recommend good course on reading comprehension if you need one.
I know you don't like Bill
I know you don't like Bill Clinton, but let's remember that he was impeached because he lied under oath about Monica Lewinski,something that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what he was being investigated for. He was being investigated for Whitewater, which took place BEFORE he was ever President (which most people thought was wrong and politically motivated in the first place). Because Ken Starr couldn't hang him on legitimate charges, he found a bedroom scandal, which was, in reality, a matter between Bill and Hillary. You can push the 'lying under oath' bit all you want, but if it smells, it smells. People were incensed when the Republican Congress impeached Clinton with good reason.
Let's not forget that the first two years of Clinton's term were spent with the Republicans in Congress blocking every one of Clinton's inititatives, including his health care initiative. People now want universal health care (even some of my conservative friends, though their taxes might go up). Our health care system is broken; more people are without it than ever, and the cost is skyrocketing. Perhaps people resent the fact that Communist Cuba, a country blockaded into widespread poverty, has a better healthcare system than we do.
Once the Republican gambit of blocking Clinton's legislation worked and they gained power, they also forgot what cooperation between the two parties meant. Republicans are responsible for: failing to pass the alternative energy initiatives attempted by the Clinton/Gore administration, which set us back on the development of alternative energy for almost two decades; eliminating the cafe standards of automobiles, which makes them at least partially responsible for Detroit's problems; loosening clean air and water standards, as well as other environmental safety laws; allowing companies to be less environmentally responsible, such as making products using #2 recyclable plastics instead of #5 nonrecyclable plastics; deregulated the banks (Clinton could have vetoed this, but when there were more than enough votes to override the veto, it was pointless); it goes on. Deregulation was the name of the game. As Herbert Hoover once said, "The problem with capitalism is capitalists."
Give me a pro-person, pro-environmental Democratic administration and Congress over a Republican anti-environmental, uncivil, and BUSINESS FIRST Republican Congress any day.
What is critical is that
What is critical is that Clinton lied under oath - he committed perjury!
Everything else said about it is a limp-dick attempt to excuse and even justify his sad performance in the morals and ethics department - much like Germans tried to excuse Hitler on the grounds that he gave them back their pride, or that Mussolini was absolved because the Fascists made the trains run on time.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Clinton NEVER should have
Clinton NEVER should have been asked about something that had NOTHING to do with the investigation: that's the truly important point. Ken Starr could have asked him, by that analysis, whatever he wanted until he got him to tell a lie to hang him on: that doesn't make it fair game for an investigation! Monica Lewinski was HOW MANY YEARS AFTER WHITEWATER???? How does that become fair game to anyone but someone with an ax to grind?
You cannot be overly stupid
You cannot be overly stupid and graduate from Georgetown University, be considered good enough for a Rhodes scholarship, and graduate from Yale Law. And even a fairly stupid lawyer would know that perjury is serious business. Bill Clinton is not stupid, but he nonetheless chose to perjure himself, and it cost him his license to practice law.
Every reflexively devoted votary of Clinton needs to come to grips with the fact that Clinton chose to lie, that it blew up in his face, and that no amount of tap-dancing about peripheral things will ever change the fact that he lied under oath.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
A witch hunt is a witch hunt
A witch hunt is a witch hunt is a witch hunt.
That's what Starr's (and the Republican-led) persecution of Bill Clinton was.
Perjury based on a question that should NEVER HAVE BEEN ASKED IN THE WAKE OF AN INVESTIGATION should not be the basis of an impeachment; again, the question was unjustified and had nothing to do with WHITEWATER.
I even know a few Republicans who feel that way.
Reagan was lucky Democrats aren't so vindictive, as is George W. Bush, who should have been impeached years ago for REAL CRIMES.
Perjury is a very real
Perjury is a very real crime. Mr. Clinton knew that, yet he chose to lie under oath in any case. It blew up in his face. Perhaps if he had better legal counsel while giving testimony he would not have destroyed himself in that fashion.
Clinton votaries need to get out of the denial phase, stop excusing or justifying his action and accept the bitter fact that no amount of maybe-shoulda-coulda is ever going to change the fact that he committed perjury.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
I suspect the perjury trap
I suspect the perjury trap was a no-win situation. He had only oral sex with the intern. Starr asked if he "had sex" with her. Clinton interpreted that (as most people would) to mean "did you have intercourse with her" and answered "No".
But if he instead interpreted it to include oral sex and answered "Yes", then his detractors would have also claimed it was perjury, since the common use of "have sex" refers to intercourse.
Clinton's mistake was to even entertain a question about their private sexual activities. In bygone eras a man asked such a question would have cursed the prosecutor, and then challenged him to a duel. I suppose the modern equivalent would have been to politely refuse to answer on the grounds that it was a private matter not relevant to the investigation. That would have been the end of it, since no judge would try to charge a sitting President with contempt of court for refusing to answer a question so far afield of the matter.
Why was Clinton even
Why was Clinton even questioned about having sex with anyone? I don't recall anyone asking Ike, Kennedy or LBJ if they dabbled with any girls. The religious right got all stirred up over anyone having sex (any kind) in the Oval Office and it not only disgraced the President but America. Ken Starr made a mockery of the investigation and ignored some stuff and focused only on Lewinsky. That awful Lucianne Goldberg started up a whole web site with people who testified on line but not in court.
It was this crap that put President Bush 43 in the white house. This brought about some of the most terrible conditions that are not over yet. Okay Bush screwed up in his own way and managed to destroy not only the integrity of America but brought down the Republican Party. So we are back on the side of the Democrats who won the gold ring free and clear.
Now lets get working on how to tackle terrorism and the economy.
Malcolm
AMEN Malcolm!!!! How many
AMEN Malcolm!!!! How many times have I asked the question "Why was Clinton even questioned about having sex with anyone?"..at least a hundred thats how many! I completely understand that it is a crime to purjure oneself and he should not have done so...but I have never understood why he was allowed to be asked or required to answer anything about anything he didn't take an oath as president to abide by...and as for the Ken Starr/ Republican vendetta that shamed every sane person that was not card carrying religious righter, not to mention the fact that it cost 6.0 MILLIONS $$$$ FOR THAT part of the INVESTIGATION ALONE. What did we recieve from that long,embarassing and expensive mess???....we got 1 impeached POTUS that was not convicted, 1 stained blue dress....plus 9 yrs of never hearing the end of the whole thing!!! For the past 8 yrs., we have had to put up with a POTUS & his vice who would never allow themselves to be under oath and were as guilty as sin of continuious lying for far more serious transgressions. For me, its never been about the blow jobs that the big wigs in D.C get....its the damnable snow jobs that they give that do the most damage, and should matter most! ENUFF
Hurrah for the Clinton bash.
Hurrah for the Clinton bash. I'm a longtime reader but I never commented before but I had to in this case because the never ending use of Bill Clinton's "perjury" is just one of the main platforms of Republican's AND Independent's false equivalency method of criticizing anything with regards to the democratic party. The whole eight years the moron pretend cowboy who is not even from Texas has had a free ride. Every stupid utterance from this clown was defended with the But, But, But Clinton mantra. Even here you get one guy equating Clinton to Hitler or Mussolini. Sure, only in an oblique fashion...but the false equivalency is used again and again. I wonder how many decades this excuse for valid discourse is going to be trotted out?
Where do you expect Obama to get experienced cabinet people from? Give me a break. I'm not a do or die Clinton supporter, but you stack his eight against the last eight and only the most diehard Clinton hater would have Bush ahead on ANY count whatsoever.
Left, Right, Clinton, Bush -
Left, Right, Clinton, Bush - who cares? I don't.
Look, the point Doug is making (and it's bloody obvious if you take your party hat off) is that NO SIDE has been any good. And they haven't. Some presidents have been better than others but none of them get above zero.
'Democratic' systems all over the world need a drastic overhaul. We need to run things in an entirely different way. For example, coalitions are great. The politicians can spend their whole time arguing and getting nothing done while the rest of us get on with our lives. Sounds good to me!
And remember: 'don't vote, it only encourages them.'
Oh my god, are we still
Oh my god, are we still writhing in shame about a blow job? It was none of anyone's business, it happened between two consenting adults, and was not ANY kind of grounds for impeachment. I thought all the grownups were on the same page about this now.
That said, I disliked Clinton's neoliberalism, especially the drastically deregulatory legislation he passed for the banks and the SEC. There was also his horsetrading that allowed SUVs on the road. I'm not sure how far he went with the mortgage debacle - I know he had a program to make more people homeowners but I don't know if he in any way stymied or weakened the regulatory body (s).
I am afraid that is where Obama is going to go, afraid that the goal is to create another Clinton era or pre-2005 Bush era. I would like some assurances about this but doubt that I will get them and am scared as hell about his cabinet.
Recycle the same 2 failed
Recycle the same 2 failed parties, who always recycle their failure friends, and you'll get recycled failure.
Remember, these people don't look back to the past just to 'bicker'..noooo way, above all that silly stuff they're all forward thinkers.
Besides that, learning from the past mistakes would mean they first have to admit to making them. That would be bad politics, and worse... bad for the party.