From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Baker, Bush and the economy (was Re: Billy and Foreign Policy)
Organization: NASA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:45:52 GMT

cogwynn@ducvax.auburn.edu writes
>  went through the roof) And Yeltsin would say "Gee thanks there Slick Willy,
>  we didn't get any support from you and our people went crazy and we had no
>  money, so we had another revolution and the Communist Party is back in 
>  control and I'm in exile and all our nukes are pointed at you again and it's
>  all your fault. Get my picture?

  Hmmm...  it seems that the scenario you describe would be just as likely to  
occur under a Bush administration.  What kind of support have we given to  
Russia thus far?  Can we afford to do more?  Can we afford _not_ to?  These are  
questions that I suspect both Bush and Clinton would prefer not to be asked  
this fall.
 
>  Ahh, Jim Baker. I think he is a true asset to this country. I thought no one
>  would ever fill the shoes of great diplomists such as Kissinger, but Baker
>  is on his way. There is no way that Slick Willy could produce a Sec. of
>  State like Baker. Sorry. End of discussion.

  In the back of my mind, I share your concern with losing Baker, more because  
of his experience than his ideology.  But let's not forget that it was Baker's  
State Department that basically gave Iraq the go-ahead for the invasion of  
Kuwait.

>  Bush has a lot of trouble working with Congress. People say that he doesn't
>  do anything, but alot of that is because Congress want let him. He does
>  propose alot to Congress that would benifit America, but gets shot down just
>  because of the liberal leadership in Congress. You also cannot forget the 
>  natural cycle that sends the US economy into a tailspin every few years.
>  Presidents always get blamed, a good example being Carter, but it not their
>  fault. It is just the people looking for an excuse.

  You make a point here that I've tried to stress in every political/economic  
discussion I've had recently; I'm a little uneasy about giving credit/blame to  
politicians for the year-to-year fluctuation of the economy.  I feel that the  
American public wants only two types of politicians: heroes and scapegoats.  We  
need someone to praise when things go right, and someone to blame when things  
go wrong.  And, as our current Prez has shown, those roles are readily  
interchangeable!

  I don't think Bush (by himself) is to blame for the current recession, any  
more than I think Carter was to blame for stagflation.  But ever since the  
Reagan campaign of 1980, the implied link between the short-term state of the  
economy and the person in charge has been growing out of control.

  The primary reason that we're in trouble now is that the government lacks the  
resources to _really_ stimulate economic growth.  We did it in the early '80s  
by cutting taxes and increasing spending.  That approach is fine in the short  
term, but it requires tight controls when things get back on track.  Instead,  
we left interest rates low, kept the military budget in the stratosphere, and  
continued to allow the wealthy to overstuff their bellys without any real  
incentive for reinvestment.  The result was an unmanageable public debt that  
crippled the government from further stimulating the economy, and a grossly  
increased level of consumer debt that made it almost impossible to increase tax  
revenues directly.

  No, Bush (or Reagan, for that matter) cannot take all of the blame for this  
situation.  But blaming Congress is a useless gesture; without active  
leadership from the White House, Congress cannot be expected to create a  
comprehensive, cohesive plan.  And mandates such as "Pass my crime bill within  
100 days while I go play golf" do not constitute leadership.  (I exaggerate,  
but you get the point.  :-)

  This country needs a President that is prepared to go deeper into the issues  
than a one page memo; to be a regular visitor to Capitol Hill for negotiating  
legislation; to participate in and _preside_ over the process, not simply react  
to its results.  Have you noticed how Bush's visits to the Capitol have  
increased dramatically during the election year?  Funny how he can get away  
with distancing himself from Congress when media attention wanes.  Clinton may  
not be the best possible man for the job, but until something better comes  
along, he's got my vote.

> Chris O'Gwynn
> cogwynn@ducvax.auburn.edu

  Ah, an AU type.  Are you a student, faculty, or staff?  What is the  
prevailing attitude on campus toward the election?  I witnessed the last  
election from the loveliest village on the plains; then, Bush-Quayle buttons  
were as much of a fashion statement as a political statement.  I'd be  
interested to hear how people are swinging this year.

Regards,

Steve Davis
AU c/o '90

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+