A Tale of Two Administrations: Would "Clinton Part 2" be Worse than What we Have Now?

Posted by D. Cupples |   I haven't committed to a presidential candidate.  Still, my jaw dropped over a recent jab from a former adviser who said that Hillary Clinton is "not offering change but rather Clinton Part 2." (New York Times)

Even if Hillary's policies were identical to Bill's ( I don't know whether or not they are), "Clinton Part 2" would  -- in fact -- be a huge step up, given how deep and dark a hole our nation has sunk into since 2001. 

Some would argue that even Nixon Part 2 would propel our nation a few yards toward daylight.  Compare, for example, results of Bill Clinton's and George Bush's policies regarding two crucial issues: government spending and international relations.

Government Spending

Under President Bush, our national debt soared to a record high  $9.2 trillion (so far), up from the $5.7 trillion debt he inherited.  That's a $3.5 trillion increase (roughly the size of our annual budget).

President Clinton inherited a $4.1 trillion debt.  During his eight-year watch, the national debt grew by only $1.6 trillion.

During each of President Bush's years in office, our nation has run budget deficits (i.e., spent more than the treasury took in). In 2005-06, Bush-friendly Republicans controlled Congress.  In 2007, the Senate had enough Bush-friendly Republicans to obstruct the House majority's appropriations bills.  That and President Bush used the veto pen with unprecedented frequency in 2007.

Under Bill Clinton, budget deficits consistently decreased and we had four years of surpluses from 1998-2001 (i.e., we spent less than we took in). These were the first back-to-back surpluses since 1957, which enabled the U.S. Treasury to pay down $138 billion of national debt. (CNN)

The table below has deficit and surplus figures. (Neither Bush nor Clinton get credit for budgets during their first year in office, because they were inherited).  A minus sign indicates a deficit. 

.      

 G.W. Bush                                      Bill Clinton

2002           - $157.8 billion                 1994      - $203.2

2003           - $377.6 billion                 1995      - $164.0

2004          - $412.7 billion                  1996      - $107.4

2005          - $318.3 billion                  1997      - $ 21.9

2006          - $248.2 billion                  1998      + $ 69.3

2007          - $162   billion                   1999     + $125.6

2008               ?                                   2000     + $236.2

2009               ?                                   2001     + $128.2

[Data from Congressional Budget Office, except 2007-09.]

If the next president were to adopt Bill Clinton's exact fiscal policies, would our nation's financial picture be worse or better than it is now?

.

International Relations

In November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that our nation cannot protect its interests worldwide without cooperation from other nations.  In other words, international relations is a crucial issue for our nation's future.

Unfortunately, the world's view of our nation has declined under President Bush, according to a Pew Research Center project. One report states:

"To give you some sense of the magnitude of the problem, favorable attitudes toward the U.S. declined in Germany, from 78% in 2000 to 37% currently [March 2007]. The numbers are similar in France, but even worse in Spain, where only 23% have a favorable view, and in Turkey, where it is 12%. Most people in these countries held positive views of the U.S. at the start of the decade." (Pew-1)

Under President Bush, our nation's Mid-East policy included overthrowing a regime under false pretenses (e.g., WMDs and a now-debunked myth about Iraq's connection to 9/11).  The Bush Administration also beat the war drums against Iran: just last month, a new NIE suggested that one purported cause for war (that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat) was false.

Those issues, alone, likely increased worldwide distrust of our nation under Bush's watch: according to a different Pew report, favorable opinions of our nation's leadership in 26 of 33 countries have declined since 2003 (the year we invaded Iraq).

Just to clarify, I don't romanticize the Clinton Administration.  In fact, I have two huge beefs with Bill:

1) his role in passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which enabled fewer corporate CEOs to control more of our news media; and,

2) his role in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that reduced conflicts of interest between investment- and commercial-banks (scandals like WorldCom, and billions in investor losses, were enabled partly because Glass-Steagall was repealed).

In short, the Clinton Administration was far from perfect.  On the other hand, if our next president were to adopt some of Bill Clinton's fiscal and diplomatic policies, our nation would gain far stronger footing than it now has.  Thus, even a "Clinton Part 2" type Administration would likely bring major positive changes for our nation.

See Memeorandum for other bloggers' commentary.

Other BN-Politics Posts:

* What happened to the 190,000 Weapons Lost in Iraq?

* High Cost of Private Contractors

* U.S. Financial Position "Deteriorated" Since 2000

* Defense Secretary Says Military Can't Protect U.S. Worldwide Interests

* Experts Pooh-Pooh War Rhetoric, Candidates Still Use it

* Journalist Helped Rice Manipulate the Public

* State Dept. Inspector Blocked Fraud Investigations?

 

* Oil Price Passes $100 Mark: Inflation Likely Ahead

Comments

[James]

The Bush deficits are terrible; his foreign policy is worse. His only positive notion in 2000 (a bit of sense regarding immigration) remains unpopular with most Republicans. He wants to give the pensions of the masses to brokers, and he has filled the judiciary with ideologues, ...

Yep, even Nixon would be a step towards the light from our current age of darkness. Nixon was better than either Bush, and Bush the elder (one of the worst and most mean-spirited US Presidents in history) was better than his spawn. Bush the younger may be the worst US President in history.

Back in 2004 it was possible to say that his lack of diplomacy combined with his imperial arrogance dug a hole that would require a half century to climb out of, and yet voters handed him a larger shovel and told to keep digging. The only step down from Bush that I can imagine would be the election of Mike Huckabee--whose potential nomination is the first scenario I can imagine that might induce me to support Hillary Clinton.

Of course almost any Democrat is better than almost any of the Republican candidates in the running today, but a bad Democrat in 2008 increases the likelihood that a worse Republican will follow. Let's keep George W. Bush's status secure as the worst President in history; let's not elect a Democrat that will provoke further lowering of standards for public office.

[gLaDieZz]

Wheeee~ I'm back here to visit. smiLes

[pjazzypar]

This administration has been appalling from day one beginning with how it obtained the presidency to the lies told to us about 911 to subsidize a war they we have no business fighting. The deficit, the stupidity of the president, and all the other negatives surrounding the Bush administration leave most people I know cold. I agree that we have to be careful in 2008 so that we do not have a repeat of the last eight years.

[D. Cupples]

James,

You make some darned good points!

PjazzyPar,

I'm among the ranks of people who have been left feeling cold.