I. A Freer Economy
The oppressive ObamaCare of that time was HillaryCare, which was never enacted. If we want to re-create the Clinton economy, then we have to repeal ObamaCare. Are Democrats willing to do that?
The federal-regulation regime was also much easier then than it is now. Will the White House become serious about genuine deregulation?
II. Clinton-era Federal Spending Levels
Federal spending as a proportion of the economy was smaller in those days. That would mean budget cuts now of around $500 billion – not spread over ten years, but right now. How likely is that?
What the hell, Steve?
“The Clinton Prosperity” was all “Smoke and Mirrors”… The bill for which is now coming due.
LegendHasIt on November 21, 2012 at 9:50 PM
The left doesn’t give a damn about economic prosperity.
jawkneemusic on November 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM
The supposed “budget surplus” under Clinton was a scam created through the same type of accounting fraud that brought down World Com and Enron.
single stack on November 21, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Obama campaigned on a less-free economy, even more spending, and a weaker dollar, so I don’t know why this is addressed to him.
theperfecteconomist on November 21, 2012 at 10:07 PM
–The economic boom of the Reagan era was still going strong into the George H. W. Bush years, but toward the end of his term we finally slid into a recession (I wonder whether breaking his “no new taxes” pledge had anything to do with that?). The recession’s recovery was already strong by the time Clinton took office (Bush’s last quarter showed over 4% GDP growth). So Clinton inherited a very good economy.
–Clinton went too radical too quickly (trying to take over the health care industry), and the American people spanked him by voting for the 1st Republican Congress in decades during the mid-term elections. This conservative legislature prevented Clinton from enacting any more significant economic policies except for NAFTA, which never would have made it through a Democrat Congress. NAFTA was great for our economy.
–This Republican Congress forced some conservative economic policy on President Clinton, most notably welfare reform. Bill vetoed it twice, but was subsequently pressured to sign the popular measure during an election year. Hundreds of thousands of people who had turned the welfare safety net into a hammock were forced to find jobs. They became taxpayers, and their new salaries enabled them to spend more, helping the economy.
–The 90s was the decade of the computer. Nearly every business went digital, exponentially increasing productivity and profits, enabling companies to hire and expand. Businesses weren’t the only ones buying from Bill Gates–schools, universities, charities, and households around the world bought American-made computers, pumping more dollars into the economy.
–The downturn that supposedly began during W’s 1st term actually had been declining since the previous summer. In fact, Bush (and others) saw it then, but when he warned us about it, he was accused of trying to “talk down” the economy. This downturn was accelerated by the fear, destruction, and insecurity brought on by the 9/11 attacks (Why did you slash the military and intelligence budgets, Mr. Clinton? Why did you refuse–twice!–when the Sudanese offered Osama to you on a silver platter?).
So we see that Clinton cannot take credit for the 90’s economic good times. The U.S.A. is, and has been for many decades, one of the most fiscally conservative countries on Earth. Conservative economic policy defined is basically lower taxes and fewer burdensome regulations on businesses. Other nations have more natural resources than we do, but we historically have prospered more because of our Judeo-Christian morality (which is getting weaker all the time) and economic conservatism (also declining).
itsnotaboutme on November 22, 2012 at 7:46 AM
To summarize my thoughts:
Bill Gates had much more to do with our prosperity than Bill Clinton.
As did Newt Gingrich.
itsnotaboutme on November 22, 2012 at 7:48 AM
Subscribe in a reader