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.

Only the facts point to the truth

There are those who say you can find an article online to support just about any argument.  But I would like to disagree with this on the grounds that the facts only support one side.

Surely you can find an opinion peace supporting any argument, but the truth is only on one side.  For instance, let's consider tax increases.  You will find articles supporting the notion that tax increases result in more government revenue.  They will argue: it just makes sense.

But there are others who argue that tax cuts create more governmental revenue. They will cite the Laffer Curve as evidence that if you raise taxes above a certain point revenue starts to decline.  In such instances, if you cut taxes so they are at or below this point, you will assure a steady inflow of tax revenue.

The supporters of this later theory will also be able to cite historical evidence in support of this theory, as Warren G. Harding/ Calvin Coolidge cut taxes and watched as the economy soared.  John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush cut taxes and saw governmental revenue nearly double in all instances.

So the evidence is only on one side.  Surely both sides will cite evidence, but just that it sounds good is not sound evidence.

Democrats and Republicans both created an imperial president

You can decide for yourself if this is true, but I heard, from a little ferry, that every time Obama opens his mouth a conservative grows its wings. Another ferry modified this and said that every time Obama opens his mouth another conservative is born.

The general consensus here, however, is that Obama continues to push forward his agenda despite the complete voter rejection of it during the 2014 mid-term elections. In other words, Obama continues to push forward his agenda, even though it is extremely unpopular.

I'm not trying to be offensive to my readers who love Obama's agenda, because regardless of whether you like it or not it's not popular. The reason it's unpopular is because Americans cherish their freedom: they do not want to be told what to do.

The whole premise of Obama's agenda, which is progressive, is for the government to make tough decisions so people don't have to. In other words, they believe sacrificing some liberties is for the benefit of the state.

Of course then the state gains power, and it has to enforce this power.  So now people are getting fined, arrested, or jailed, (and this is not all Obama's fault, rather the fault of the progressive movement) for doing things that they shouldn't be arrested for, such as smoking or drinking in public, taking certain medicines, not paying taxes, not buying health insurance, not sending your kids to state-run schools, etc.

It's gotten to the point that we have given up enough personal liberties.  Plus the government has gotten so large and so powerful that those in power are abusing it, something the founding fathers warned against.

A perfect example is how Obama used his executive power to push a health care bill through Congress that a majority of voters did not want.

A perfect example is how the Obama administration used its power to spy on conservatives who said they belonged to the tea party, a party that was opposed to the Obama agenda.

As what occurred in the 1920 election, people are tired of laws to perfect society. People want their liberties back. They want to scale back the government, take away some of this power, and take back liberties.

So the people send Obama a message in the mid-terms, and he continues to push forth his agenda.  Today it's all over the news how he wants to improve relations with Cuba, a communist country with a dictator thug as a ruler.

Why would Obama do this?  The answer is quite simple: The Progressive Agenda is a sister Agenda to Cuba's Communism.  They are both fascist parties that believe the state should make all the tough decisions, even when it means the people sacrificing personal liberties.

Look, it's not just Obama who tries to push forth the progressive agenda, as the disease has infested the republican party as well.  Sure George W. Bush did a lot of good things, but he also doubled the national debt, adding $5 trillion to it.  This was because he created progressive programs, vetoing only 12 bills, the lowest total since Warren G. Harding (and that's not even fair, because Harding never even finished one term).

So why did Bush add to the problem he purported to oppose?  Well, your guess is as good as mine.  Yet one might "assume" that he used the power of the pulpit to buy votes.

Yes!  This is, one might say, the exact reason Grover Cleveland vetoed 414 bills in his first term and 170 in his second.  Cleveland knew he could use his power to move forward his agenda, but he didn't want to give future presidents the power to trample on the Constitution for their own political gain.

Cleveland understood, as the founding fathers understood, that people have a natural tendency to abuse power.  This, as we have seen, is exactly what happened in Cuba where Castro became a dictator.  The same thing happened here in the U.S. where the president has gained imperial powers, being dubbed by many as the imperial president.

In essence, what is occurring in Cuba is exactly what progressives want to happen here.

It's the fault of both parties, though. Surely the democratic party is infested with fascist liberals, but the republican party is infested with them too.  Allow me to name a few: John McCain, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel, and Lindsey Graham.

If any of these guys runs for president, we might as well let Hilary win so the republican party doesn't get blamed for progressive failures.  And if the democratic party decides to save face and nominate a conservative, then we had better vote democrat.

We can look back at past presidential records and see that there have been just as many great democrat presidents as republicans.  And we can also see that Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive, and he was a republican.  In fact, in the 1912 presidential election, Roosevelt was more progressive than democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Surely Obama's agenda has added $6.103 billion to the national debt, nearly doubling it. The second worse is not another democrat, however, but George W. Bush, a republican, who added $5.840 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it.  Compare this with Bill Clinton, who only added $1.86 trillion, or Jimmy Carter who added only $299 billion.

Both of our political parties -- republicans and democrats -- have created imperial presidents who take money from voters and spend it on programs aimed at helping the minority at the expense of the majority.  And, as they usually say, they do it for our own good, while secretly doing it for their own political gain.

Yet the bottom line is that they abuse the power they are given in order to get re-elected and advance their agenda.  This is exactly the type of thing that George Washington warned against in his Farewell Speech in 1796.

Yet Obama gives us hope, so the ferry's say.  By continuing to advance his agenda, he his earning the ire of the electorate, indirectly creating new conservatives/ libertarians each time he opens his mouth.  While voters might hope he stops, his not doing so is empowering his enemies.

Has George W. Bush been vindicated?

Few people would disagree that former president George W. Bush was an amiable and sociable guy. He was also a humble president who made decisions based on sound principle

He is a humble guy who put his country first, even when his legacy and the future of the republican party stood in the balance,. 

He showed time and again that he loves and respects his country so much that he refuses to respond to criticisms that he was wrong about the Iraq war, even while doing so might have saved his legacy and lead to a republican monopoly in Washington.  

From the moment the Iraq war began in 2003, the Democrat Party, after a couple days of making it look like they were all for it because public support was, it didn't take long before the Democrat Party and the media began an ongoing, never-ending 24/7, 365 effort to discredit the effort, to discredit the war, to discredit the motivation.

During the initial fighting in Iraq there was no effort to search for WOMD, as the effort at this time was to secure the area.  Yet one the fighting started to slow down in 2004, evidence started to come in that Saddam did indeed harbor such weapons.  Yet even when Rick Santorum came forward with evidence back in 2006 (and, yes, he's gloating today), George W. Bush refused to release the evidence to prove Santorum right.  

While the decision must have been that of George Bush himself, a new report suggests that Karl Rove is taking the blame for covering up the fact that WOMD were indeed found in Iraq.  As evidence of discarded WOMD started coming in, he simply said, "Let sleeping dogs lie."

To me, that does not seem to be the type of decision that Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor, would make.  As political advisor, you'd think he would have preferred for such evidence to become vastly available for the media to pounce over in order to vindicate a president who had otherwise been vastly criticised by democrats in Washington and the media.  

However, a decision to let sleeping dogs lie would go right along with how Bush handled his presidency, whereby he would often make decisions he thought were best for his country based on principle, and let the people decide for themselves.  

In fact, as you can see for yourself in this video, in 2007 Bush ordered a surge in Iraq while critics were calling for a pull out.  Bush, however, went on TV to defend his decision.  He said: 

"I know some in Washington would like us to withdraw from Iraq now.  Begin withdrawing before our commanders say we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.  It would mean we would risking mass killings on a horrific scale.  It would mean we allow terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq that they lost in Afghanistan.  It would mean that we increase the possibility that U.S. troops will face on a later date an enemy that was even more dangerous." 

This was a surge that would indeed end up stabilizing the region.  And, after Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, ISIS entered the region.  ISIS, as you may know, is quite possibly the enemy that is even more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

The problem with any news that appears to vindicate Bush is that it will always be underplayed by the media.  Even as the New York Times reported that WOMD were in fact found in Iraq, they down played this news by saying, "but it was a pre-1991 weapons cache."

But what does it matter.  The fact of the matter is that Bush was right. He was right to go into Iraq to in an effort to create stability in an otherwise unstable region, and to make it so terrorists could not harbor weapons and find safe havens that allowed them to regroup in their efforts to convert or kill non Muslims.

It appears, however, that Bush has indeed been vindicated.  

Poll paints grim picture for democrats

It's not uncommon for the American people to get tired of one party being in power for too long, but recent polling data shows they are more tired of Obama than Bush, Clinton, and even Jimmy Carter.

The latest polling data was reported by the Associated Press and shows that Americans lack confidence in the government's ability to protect their personal safety and economic security.

The poll also shows that 90 percent of those likely to vote in the November elections call the economy an extremely or very important issue. Considering most consider the economy to still be lagging in a recession, this does not bode well for the party in power, which so happens to be democrats.

Another interesting thing about this poll is that it reveals that 32 percent of voters want to send a message of opposition with their vote, compared to just 20 percent who want to send a message of support.  This in and of itself does not bode well for the party in power.

While the article doesn't do this, I think it's important to put these numbers in perspective.  That 32 percent is 13 points higher than in 1998 when former President Bill Clinton was headed to impeachment, higher than in 2008 when Americans were fed up with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and higher than in 1980 when voters were fed up with Jimmy Carter's agenda.

I'm not the kind of person who takes much stock in polls, although I thought this one was rather significant so close to an election. Similar to how democrats marched to office near the end of the Bush years, republicans might be marching come November -- yet perhaps on a greater scale.

Obama is the perfect president

I remember when George W. Bush was president, and his poll numbers were low, we were inundated with a daily onslaught of front page articles and news updates on CNN reminding us of how unpopular he was.  But now that Barack Obama's polling numbers are low we get nothing.

People who don't seek news from alternative routes, which is probably the case for most people, would have no idea that Obama is as unpopular as Bush.

The Media Research Center, which has the task of monitoring media fairness, has reported that there were 124 network reports of George W. Bush's approval ratings between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2006.  During the same time span in 2014, there were only 9 reports of Obama's disapproval ratings.

Likewise, while evidence suggests the recession is still ongoing, the media make it seem like it's over.  On Tuesday Obama ordered bombs to blast enemy enclaves in Syria, and, if you pay attention to the main news outlets, you'd think it was the most perfect war ever.

This is the kind of thing that happens when the person in charge is someone you support.  It's a perfect example of poor journalism. If you were a person who didn't understand this, you'd think Obama was the perfect president.