Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez
Two things: One is while Clinton spent he also did it when he could. You can't criticize the guy for spending in times of a surplus. Thus, although he spent, he did not run up deficits (I call that fiscal conservatism). Plus, you can't give the guy no credit for the economic times and pass it off as fluke. Did he have some luck -- for sure. But if the country's economic stability and growth has NOTHING to do with the President, then whey do we talk about it at election time?
Second, my point is more the fact that Bush has erased what was a big advantage for the Republicans at election time -- pointing to the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible and big spenders.
|
The amount of credit I give Clinton for the perceived economics boomtime is ZERO - just as I do any president, including Reagan and his sustained growth and Bush Jr for the largest economic jump (last October??) of all time.
The reason is that it is still the legislative branch that controls the pursestrings. The FY budgets submitted by the presidents have about 3/4 of their amounts already set in stone (mandatory spendings). Most of the remaining are discretionary pork. While the flavors of pork can change year to year, I believe they have about the same effect on the economy. Spending has remained constant all of these years, reagrdless of alledged growth or deficit in revenues. I believe no president can submit a balanced budget that reduces spending to the level of guesses-at income. It would be impossible and absolutely DOA in Congress. Presidents can submit major programs that would increase mandatory spendings but their effects usually don't show up economically until further down the road (like taxes as well).
You want fiscal responsibility? Change the attitudes of Congress and of most American people in demanding the Federal Govt be involved in every single facet of our lives (and the massive bureaucracies that it must entail) and to hold them accountable for every dollar being spent.