Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:35:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access

In article <1992Aug15.233234.19417@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>Hey Bill, a lot of folks think it was the BORROW and SPEND Republicans
>>that got us into the present economic situation.  How about it?
>
>If increasing spending is our mistake,
>dump the big spenders:
>
>	Like Al Gore, rated by NTU as the biggest spender in the
>Senate in the last few years.
>
>	Of the 100 top big spenders in the House (rated by the National
>taxpayers Union) all but 4 of them were Democrats.
>
>	Like Bill Clinton, who proposes billions in new spending on
>*top* of the projected increases in Federal spending over the next
>4 years.
>
>If increasing borrowing is a problem, then:
>
>Support the Balanced Budget Amendment, opposed by Bill Clinton,
>opposed by the House and Senate Democrat leaders, and voted
>against by a dozen hypocritical Democrats who claimed to support it
>(as co-signers) but who voted against it.
>
>*Oppose* Bill Clinton's disaster of an economic plan, whose tax
>hikes and regulatory increases will stall out our recovery and *reduce*
>tax revenues, while his planned increases in spending will only
>contribute to a greater deficit. If his plan goes according
>to plan (which it won't), he will add almost $1 trillion more
>to the national debt. If it fails, which it will, we can expect
>an even wider gap, with an even deeper hole to dig ourselves out of.
>Bill Clinton is about to sell us down the river on "change", but
>he wants more than change .... he wants the whole damn piggy bank,
>to feed the plans of the borrow, tax and spend Democrat party.
>	 
>Republicans have proposed pro-growth initiatives that will
>keep taxes low while revenues rise (shunned by the Democrats), have
>bravely fought for spending caps and spending reductions (which have been
>demagogued by the Democrats), have pushed budget deficit reduction
>legislation like the Gramm-Rudman bill (which have been gutted by the
>Democrats), and have recently overwhelmingly voted for the Balanced Budget
>Amendment (which the Democrats voted overwhelmingly against).
>

The Balanced Budget Amendment fell short by *six* votes from the 3/4 majority
required.  The amendment had to have had bipartisan support to even get THIS 
close.



>We need to dump the big-spending Democrat majority in Congress,
>and install a progressive pro-growth Republican majority.
>*Then* we will end the tax, borrow, and spend binge, and restore
>fiscal sanity to the Federal Government.
>
>Pat

I've got two arguments with what you have said here. First of all, I give very
little credence to the National Taxpayers' Union, as it is not an independent
watchdog group. It is a group of arch-conservatives who weigh ratings on the
"value" of monies doled out versus actual dollars approved by congressional
members. If you don't spend the monies in the "right places", you get a worse
rating.

As for the Balanced Budget Amendment, the only reason that Clinton didn't
support the proposal is because *AS WRITTEN* he felt it was a bad proposal. No
realistic cuts take effect with the amendment until 1996, which so happens to be
the same year that Bush would be leaving office.  Clinton's plan is a little 
better, but is far from perfect.  He believes in tightening up tax codes to 
reduce the number of loopholes available, while offering a significant tax
cut to people making incomes of $85,000 or less (this may not be the exact
amount, but the amount is in the mid 80's).  There is included a tax rate hike
(2.5% on monies earned above $200K.)  With the reduced taxes on monies earned
below $85000, the actual tax difference won't be even FELT until an income
of around $315,000/yr is reached. This coupled with the fact we are talking
only $2500 per each $100,000 earned, the argument that it will cost *LOTS* of
jobs simply won't hold water.

There will be a significant (~25%) turnover in Congress this year due to a lot
of congressmen either (a) retirement or (b) losing in primaries.  The face of
Congress will be signifcantly younger and different.

Tom H.


-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns