From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:13:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov17.162630.8691@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> Bill Clinton met with Congressional leaders, i.e Foley, Gephardt and Mitchel.
>But where was Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole?

According to the film clip on last night's 6 o'clock news, right behind the
mike and right in front of Gore, Gephardt, Mitchell, Clinton, and a couple of
suits I didn't recognize.  Where did you expect him to be?

>    * Line item veto. To eliminate pork-barrel projects and cut government
>      waste, I will ask Congress to give me the line item veto.
>
>Bill has now backed off on that by changing the rules for Congressional
>overrides of this line item veto fromt he normal 2/3 to a simple majority.

I don't see where the second eliminates the first.  He said he wanted the
line item veto, and he didn't specify details.  Now he says he wants the line
item veto, and now that he's in, he and Congress are starting to work out the
details.  That isn't backing off, that's wading in.

If you intend to build your own home some day, sitting down and working out
a blueprint and plans once you know how much you can afford to spend to build
it is not "backing off" from building the house.  On the contrary, it is
getting down to business and making the project possible.  Likewise, Clinton
getting down to business and making his projects possible is precisely the
opposite of "backing off".

>The Democratic Platform says:
>  We don't have an American to waste.  Democrats will continue to 
>  lead the fight to ensure that no Americans suffer discrimination or 
>  deprivation of rights on the basis of race, gender, language, national 
>  origin, religion, age, disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, or other
>  characteristics irrelevant to ability. 
>
>Bill now says he he no longer has a timetable or structure to 
>follow regarding relaxing the ban on homosexuals in the military.

The Democratic Platform does not have a timetable or structure to follow
regarding relaxing the ban on homosexuals in the military.  Are you claiming
that Clinton is reneging on a non-existent timetable?

>The Democratic Platform says:
>    We will relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by forcing 
>    the rich to pay their fair share.
>Bill himself once said:
>    My plan would make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share 
>    in taxes.
>
>But yesterday "he  raised the possibility of making ALL Americans give up
>something...'The American people will be much more willing to accept the
>argument that ALL HAVE TO SACRIFICE AND CONTRIBUTE over the long run if
>they believe we're starting from a fair tax system' ".

This is no more and no less than what he's been saying all during the cam-
paign.  If the government is to raise money by raising taxes, it can do it
the way Reagan and Bush did, by raising taxes on the middle class and keeping
taxes steady or lowering them on the very rich, or it can do it Clinton's
way, by raising taxes on everyone but enough more on the very rich so that
everyone hurts just as much.  What the Democratic Platform and Clinton "once
said" does not contradict what Clinton said "yesterday".

>Before the election, I stated that I liked Bill Clinton but wouldn't vote
>for him because of all the Democrats that would come hands outstrectched to
>Clinton.

I hope you similarly refused to vote for Bush because of all the Republicans
who would have come hands outstretched to Bush, or for Perot because of all
the people of all parties (or partyless) who would have come hands outstret-
ched to Perot, or for Marrou because of all the Libertarians who would have
come hands outstretched to Marrou, and so on.  It'd be interesting to find
out who you think you could have voted for who would not have had to fill the
4000 or so Cabinet and lesser executive posts once s/he'd become President
(or have had to and not found any people volunteering to fill them).

> I was concerned they would get him to back off his pledges after
>the election. Granted, most of his pledges are still there to be fulfilled
>but it is starting to look like politics and spending as usual and he is not
>even President yet...

Is it that 1. you don't want Clinton to fulfill his presidential responsibili-
ties, or that 2. you don't want him to work to get his proposals into law, or
that 3. you don't know that an item with one attribute may also have another
(like a coffee mug, for instance, having the attribute of size is not barred
from also having the attribute of color)?  For 1., Clinton has to fill 4000
or so executive offices by appointment.  He must select his Cabinet officers
and (at least) appoint a team of advisors to select people for the rest.  He
and his team must fill these posts.  If there are no candidates for these
posts then the US government is handicapped.  For 2., Bush didn't want to do
any more than the minimum to get his proposals into law, so they didn't get
done.  It's more important to Clinton that his proposals become law, so he
intends to work harder to do so than Bush did.  Clinton can't do it by fiat
because our government is not authoritarian.  Clinton must work with Congress
to implement his proposals -- it is a reality of US government.  In order to
work with Congress, Clinton must meet with individual Senators and Represen-
tatives to find out what he can do to meet their needs, so that they will
meet his.  This is a reality of living in human society.  A person suffic-
iently insulated from human society can forget this, like Bush did (and ap-
parently you, assuming you ever knew it).  Clinton revels in human society
(as is pretty clear from his propensity for crowds) and is unlikely to have
already forgotten, or to forget soon, what made him an effective governor for
12 years even if the Secret Service's coronaries force him to give up his
morning jogs and McDonald's coffee.  Turning his pledges into concrete laws
is *honoring* his pledges.  Bush backed off from his pledges by refusing to
honor them, that is, by showing no interest in turning them into law once he
got into the position where he could have done so.  For 3., a line item veto
has certain attributes because of the definition of the term.  The definition
does not include the percentage of a countervailing vote necessary to over-
turn it.  The addition of the attribute of one percentage instead of another
does not cause the line item veto to cease being a line item veto and become
something else instead, any more than a green coffee cup isn't a coffee cup
because the coffee cup you own is blue.

Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    For every vision there is an equal and opposite revision.   -- Anon.     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.clinton