Bill Clinton: A good fiscal president, bad role model

George H.W Bush failed to hold true to his pledge not to raise taxes, and this angered the conservative base. This, coupled with the successful independent campaign of Ross Perot, allowed William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton to slip into the office of the President without garnishing a majority of support among voters.

He ran as a "new" democrat. By this, he was trying to make it look like he was not the same old type of liberal democrat as was portrayed in the 1960's. However, there was nothing new about the Bill Clinton's agenda other than he attempted to run as a moderate (conservative) democrat rather than a liberal democrat. However, once elected he would run as a liberal. 

So, the claim of being a "new" democrat, the fact that the country was ready for something other than a republican, the fact that Bush was perceived as not conservative enough, or as a person who is not true to his word, gave us Bill Clinton. 

Bush made very little effort to change domestic policy; he essentially rode the wave of Reaganomics. By the end of his term, a mild recession was in process, and this may have been partially due to Bush's allowing Congress to raise some existing taxes. However, the recession was short lived and is generally considered one of the mildest recession in U.S. history. The Reagan economic boom continued throughout much of the Clinton administration. 

The result was Bill Clinton became President in 1992. The economy quickly recovered and continued to soar. Bill Clinton's popularity soared as he rode the economic tide created by Reagan. The economy created by Reaganomics was so strong the Bush recession turned out to be but a minor blip in the road.

My dad, a person I would consider a conservative republican, has said to me on numerous occasions that he thought Clinton was a good President just by the fact that he created a sound economic environment. My dad said that he decided to sell his business while the economy was still doing well, and this was mainly because of Clinton. 

While it's easy to give Clinton credit, he probably doesn't deserve it. Here is why.

During the 1980s, Reagan cut regulations and cut taxes in order to stimulate the economy. At the same time, to help win the cold war, he increased military spending. He believed it was important to have the mightiest military in the world but to not need it. He referred to this as "Peace through strength."

To offset this, a democratic controlled Congress promised to cut spending. Congress would later renege on this promise. So, by the end of the Reagan-Bush era, the national debt was at an all-time high. Bill Clinton believed he could pay off some of this debt by cutting military spending and raising taxes on the wealthy. So, in 1993, he signed a bill that would do just that.

As far as the military, throughout his terms, the military budget was repeatedly cut, and this resulted in reductions at the Pentagon, a closing of military bases, a pullout of many troops from Europe, and many military bases were shut down.

By the end of Clinton's term in office, the military was severely depleted. While conservatives saw this as problematic, liberals see this as a good thing. They believe a powerful military just makes the U.S. look arrogant to people in nations like Iran and Iraq.

For instance, when radical Muslims commit acts of terror against us, it's our fault more so than theirs. To fix the problem, rather than built up the military, they tear it down.

You see, this is the kind of nonsensical stuff your dealing with when a liberal posing as a moderate is elected President.

In fact, after 911, Clinton's former Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger, said Clinton had cut defense spending so much, and the military was so depleted, that he didn't think we could fight and win a war on terrorism.

He also raised taxes on the wealthy. One of the myths of Keynesian economics is that raising money on the wealthy is a viable method of raising governmental revenue. The problem with this is wealth cannot be taxed, only income can be taxed. Most people who are wealthy have their money invested, and so they don't make income per se.

Plus, on the income they do make, as their taxes go up, they just find ways of getting around paying it. It's not worth doing this when taxes are low, but when they are perceived as too high, the extra effort is worthwhile.

In either case, tax hikes usually result in a short-term revenue increase, althoug a long-term decline in revenue. Liberals believe this is okay so long as it allows them to push forth their progressive agendas. 

However, this agenda was repudiated by voters in the 1994 mid-term elections as republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time in 40 years. This is often referred to as the "republican revolution," and was lead by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. It's also often referred to as the "Newt Gingrich Revolution." 

Gingrich's House, capped by the Contract with America, powered Conservatives, and united republicans. The most important thing on that Contract with America called for tax cuts -- particularly capital gains tax cuts. 

Due to his desire to get along with Congress to pass his agenda later, Clinton (perhaps due to bad advice from his staffers), signed the Gingrich tax cuts into law. 

This, in my opinion, is why the economy continued to boom. This tax cut offsets the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and allowed the economy to continue to soar. Now, of course, we also have to recognize the Internet boom also played a role. But I think the Newt Gingrich Contract with America, while helping to reinvigorate republicans, also saved the Clinton administration, making it look good. 

The 1964 election put Clinton up against moderate republican Bob Dole. Clinton rode the economic wave through the election, beating Dole by an electoral vote of 379 to 159. However, once again he failed to gain a majority of support of the voters, as he garnished only 49.2% of the popular vote (although this was more than Dole's 40.7%). 

As you might imagine, the liberal media makes sure most people know that it was Bill Clinton's economy. And that's fine with me, as the President should get credit for the economy. I mean, think of it this way: he could have vetoed the tax cuts. But he didn't. He signed them into law, and in this way, he should get credit.

Still, liberals sight the booming 1990s economy as a result of the Clinton tax hikes. They often cite this as evidence that tax hikes can stimulate the economy. Conservatives understand that it was the tax cuts that did this, not the tax hikes. But, this is one of the reasons there are two parties, so one can act like kids and skrew things up, and the other can act as adults and fix things while not caring that the other gets credit.

In December of 1993, he worked with democrats and republicans in Congress to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This bill removed tariffs on trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

 Critics said this bill would cause industries to move out of the U.S. and open shop in those other countries where workers were paid less, and then they would sell their products back in the U.S. while making a higher profit. Supporters claimed the bill would benefit both countries equally.

This criticism was brushed off by democrats and republicans alike until Donald Trump came around 23 years later and informed voters that NAFTA had resulted in 75,000 industries leaving the country. So, in the end, while seen as necessary in the modern global economy, it would end up benefiting other nations at the expense of American jobs.

So, NAFTA would wind up being one of the worse bills ever signed by any President.

One other really good thing he did was, on August 22, 1996, sign the welfare reform bill called The Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It required able-bodied people on Welfare to work, and it limited the number of years they could receive government assistance. His Welfare to Work Partnership helped people get the needed education and training they needed to get jobs.

It worked. Between 1994 and 2004, the number of people on welfare declined by 60%.Plus, many studies showed that in 1996, 60% of mothers removed from welfare were able to find jobs, and after a period of several months 80% held jobs. U.S. Census data also showed that between 1993 and 2000 the percentage of low-income, single mothers, with a job grew from 58-75%, an increase of almost 30%. In those same years, the percentage of never-married mothers in the workforce increased from 44-66%, an increase of 50%.

All of these were unprecedented improvements. Another neat statistics is that, between 1994 and 2000, child poverty fell every year. By the year 2000, the poverty rate of black children was at the lowest it had ever been.

Liberals see this as bad, claiming it means there are people who need assistance are not getting it. Conservatives believe success is not based on how many people need government assistance, but by how many people can make it on their own. By the conservative definition, Clinton's welfare reform was a huge success. 

Clinton also faced his share of scandals, including various accusations that had sexually assaulted or raped women, and one woman by the name Monica Lewinski who claimed that she gave him a blowjob in the Oval Office. Clinton at first denied these claims, although later evidence forced him to appear on national television one evening to apologize to voters. That must have been humiliating.

So, I list Clinton in my second tier of Presidents called, "They did some good things, but they also did some bad things. Fiscally he was a pretty decent President. Along with raising taxes and cutting military spending, he also succeeded at cutting 377,000 government jobs and sharply reduced government spending.

This was so successful that, in 1999, it was announced that he and Congress had succeeded at balancing the Federal budget. By the time his term ended there was even a surplus. It's also important to mention that he helped create an economic environment that saw the creation of 20 million new jobs.

Again, people who credit the tax hikes for these successes are not being honest. The true reason for the good Clinton economic years were the tax cuts, particularly on Capital Gains. It should be noted that the best way to get a stagnant economy moving is by cutting capital gains taxes. 

Regardless, by the end of his terms, the Internet Bubble had burst. This caused a recession. I think it's fair to say that, by our own rule of giving a President credit for the state of the economy, we can duly call it the Clinton Recession. It was in this state that Clinton saw his Vice-President nominated as the democratic candidate for President in 2000.

Perhaps a repudiation of sorts on the Clinton years was that Gore lost in in closely contested election to George W. Bush, the son George H.W. Bush. Overall, however, Clinton's economy was pretty good, and for that, we can mark him as a pretty good fiscal President. Socially, however, he was a horrible role model for a nation that truly needed one.

George H.W. Bush: "Read my lips: No new taxes!"

Ronald Reagan leads the nation through the greatest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, and when term limits and age prevented him from running for a third term, an easy decision for republicans was to nominate his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush, for President in 1988.

George Bush was born on June 12, 1924, in Milton, Massachusetts, the second of five children. His parents were Prescot and Dorothy Bush. He was named after his grandfather, whose nickname was "Pop." So, it was only fitting that the younger George H.W. Bush be called "Poppy" or "Little Pot."

His father was a partner in a Wallstreet investment bank, so Prescot and Dorothy  had plenty of money. Despite this, they made sure George and his siblings were not spoiled.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japanese warplanes on December 7, 1941, George Bush was 17 years old. He vowed that he would join the military as soon as he turned 18. And, true to his word, despite being accepted to Yale, and despite his father encouraging him to go to college prior to joining the service, Bush joined the Navy. On June 9, 1943, he earned his wings, becoming the youngest aviator in the navy.

On September 2, 1944, his plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire. Despite his plane being on fire and the cockpit filling with smoke, he completed his mission and dropped four bombs. He then flew as far as he could over the ocean until he couldn't stay inside the plan anymore, and ejected.

He inflated a raft. Japanese forces were in the area and were on the way to take him prisoner. However, out of the blue water came a U.S. submarine called the Finback. Bush had to stay aboard for a month while the crew finished their mission.

In total, he would participate in 58 missions. He would serve out his time in the military as a trainer of new navy pilots. He would serve until the end of WWII.

He became a student at Yale, had a son named George W. Bush, and graduated from Yale. His father wanted him to work with him, although Bush decided to take a job as an equipment clerk at an oil company in Texas. It's what got his foot in the door of the oil industry.

In 1951, he and friend started the Bush-Overbay Oil Development Company that they called "Zapata." The business became very successful.

His father was elected as a U.S. Senator out of Connecticut in 1952. By 1962, the younger Bush was bitten by the political bug and decided to get into politics. He was asked to run for chairman of the Harris County Republican Party (in Texas) and he accepted. He easily won.

This set him up nicely to run for the U.S. Senate in 1964. He would be opposed the incumbent Ralph Yarborough. During the campaign, John F. Kennedy was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became President.

The very liberal Johnson would face Conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Bush supported Goldwater. Johnson won in a landslide, and riding the wave of this landslide victory was Ralph Yarborough.

After the loss, Bush quipped: "I took some far right positions to get elected. I hope I never do it again. I regret it." This was among the first signs that Bush was not a true Conservative, more of a moderate republican. This would go on to haunt the rest of his political career.

In 1966, Bush ran for a seat in the House of Representative, and this time he won with 56.7% of the vote. He became the first republican to represent Houston in Congress. During his term, he angered his fellow republicans by supporting Johnson's Fair Housing Act.

In 1968, he campaigned for republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon, and for this Nixon was very thankful. That same year Bush successfully ran for a second term. In 1970, he gave up his seat in the House to run against democrat Lloyd Bentsen for the Texas seat in the U.S. Senate.

Bush lost. However, Nixon, wanting to thank Bush for campaigning for him in 1968, nominated Bush to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In 1972, he was asked by Nixon to chair the Republican National Committee. He didn't necessarily want the job, but he said, "You cannot turn a President down"

After Watergate resulted in Nixon's resignation, Bush became chief liaison officer to the People's Republic of China. Beginning in 1972, Nixon had started to improve relations with China. At the time, little was known about this nation, so Bush considered his new assignment a challenge.

Rather than riding limousines through the streets of China, He and Barbara rode bicycles just like the Chinese residents did. In order to learn about the Chinese way of life, he and Barbara would also participate in many Chinese events and would socialize with the Chinese as much as possible.

Bush was tasked with the job if further improving relations with the Chinese, and improving relations between the two nations. His time in this post was considered by many as a success. It ended in 1975 when President Ford nominated him to head the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

He loved his current job and did not want to change. The CIA at this time was a mess, and failure to fix it might hurt his future political aspirations. However, once again, he did not turn a President down. He used skills he learned in the oil business to fix the CIA. When Ford lost to Carter in 1976, Bush's term as CIA director abruptly ended.

So, this would put Bush in a nice position to begin preparing for a potential run for President in 1980. He was the son of a former U.S. Senator. He was a successful businessman and had gained extensive experience in both domestic politics and foreign affairs. It's probably fair to say he was among the most qualified people ever to seek the office.

A problem he faced was that he was up against a true conservative by the name of Ronald Reagan. While he was a conservative, it was quite clear that he was no Ronald Reagan conservative. While running against Reagan in the Republican primaries in 1980, he referred to Reagan's economic plan (which would later be dubbed "Reaganomics") as "Voodoo Economics." This would end up haunting Bush more than his opponent.

Many people thought Reagan was going to name former President Gerald R. Ford to be his Vice President. However, Ford sort of stepped in it when he said that if he were nominated for the post it would be like there were two Presidents in the White House. Reagan wasn't happy with that idea. So, he went with his #2  choice for the position and gave George H. W. Bush a surprise call.

The problem with Bush is that he is one of many republican politicians who are afraid of conservatism. Even though they might support the conservative agenda, they developed a fear that if they gave the impression they were too far to the right that their careers would take the same path as Goldwater.

Reagan was well aware that Bush was very qualified for the job. He was also well aware of his fear of Conservatism. So, he asked Bush if he would be able to support his Conservative agenda. Bush said he could.

Reagan campaigned as a Conservative. When elected he acted like a conservative, and cut regulations, cut taxes, and created an economic environment that set off the greatest period of economic expansion in U.S. history.

As Reagan's second term was coming to an end, George Bush was set up nicely to be the Republican nominee for President. Haunting him, however, were his comments in the past that hinted that he would not be conservative enough to gain the support of the republican conservative base.

In 1984, for instance, democratic nominee for President Walter Mondale said that if Bush were elected President he would raise taxes. While Reagan said he would not raise taxes during his second term, Bush said that there are times when taxes needed to be raised.

At the Republican National Convention on August 18, 1988, even though he had secured the nomination, these comments still hung over Bush's head. So, in order to gain the support of conservative voters, he said:

"Read my lips: No new taxes!"

These six words would go on to define his presidency, and not in a good way.

They would see him rode the wave of Reagan's popularity and a booming economy and handily defeat Democrat Michael Dukakis by an electoral vote of 426 to 111. He won 40 states to Dukakis's 10 and won the popular vote by a total of 53.4% to 45.6%.

I was freshman student at Ferris State University at this time. I watched the results come in with my friend Frank in the Bond Hall lobby. He was a democrat. Early in the evening, it appeared quite apparent that Bush was going to win. I remember my friend saying, "It's looking pretty apparent to me that Bush is going to win. Congratulations!

This landslide victory put Bush in a great position to continue the Reagan economic boom.

He failed.

He failed because he decided to play it safe and make no changes, rather than continuing the Reagan trend of reducing the size and scope of government. It became apparent, even to those who were new to politics such as myself, that Bush wasn't a true conservative. In fact, he was afraid of it.

And it was so sad to see. He was set up so nicely, if only he just acted as a conservative. He was not alone in this type of failure, as it plagued Ford in 1976, just as it would plague Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

Reagan proved conservatism worked. Yet, for one reason or another, republicans, like Bush, continue to be afraid of it. It was because of this stupid idea that you have to move to the center, and to cater to democrats, and to negotiate with democrats, that doomed the Bush presidency.

It was for this reason that he reneged on his promise of no new taxes. However, not helping matters was that he did have to deal with a Democrat-controlled Congress.

In 1990 this Congress believed new taxes were needed to pay off the debt. Bush attempted to compromise so he didn't renege on his promise. The bill created no new taxes, per se. However, it did raise existing taxes.

This was called a broken promise, a sign that he could not be trusted. Nationalist Conservative Pat Buchanan played on this theme during the republican primaries in 1992. After Bush won the nomination, this theme was also used against him by former Arkansas Governor and democratic nominee for President Bill Clinton.

If winning re-election is considered as a sign of a President's success, then Bush's Presidency was flat out repudiated by voters, as he would go on to lose to Clinton by an electoral vote of 370 to 168.

To be fair, however, we must note here that Bill Clinton only earned 43% of the popular vote. So, during a typical election day, this would mean that Bush should have won.

However, businessman Ross Perot ran as a Reform Party candidate. He appealed to  voters by paying for commercial time and speaking directly to them, often referring to graphs and charts. He won a whopping 18.9% of the popular vote.

Most political analysts will claim that Perot cost Bush the election. However, some believe that if Perot shifted votes from Bush or Clinton, he did so equally, as exit polls showed he drew equally among conservative, liberal, and independent voters.

I'll let you decide if Perot cost Bush the election. However, I think it's fair to assume that Bush could have helped his chances if he would have had more faith in Conservatism.