From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "HANDLER-IN-CHIEF" JAMES BAKER'S RECORD:
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:37:25 EST
Summary: A very good one.  But they won't say that :)
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <29229@life.ai.mit.edu>, 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:

	Straight from "disinformation central", we have:

>                "HANDLER-IN-CHIEF" JAMES BAKER'S RECORD:
>               TRICKLE-DOWN, DUBIOUS DEALS, AND COVER-UPS
>...all the Bush is bad stuff...
>       Despite his assiduous cultivation of his own image -- often at
>  the expense of his boss -- James Baker has a decidedly mixed record
>  in government.  Baker's past record makes him an ironic choice to try
>  and save George Bush, since he has been involved in so many of the
>  disastrous policies of the past twelve years.
> 
>       Baker and "trickle-down" Reaganomics.

	Heh.  The only reason Clinton has a good chance of winning is because
Bush abandoned supply-side economics.

>       As Ronald Reagan's first Chief of Staff, he was the political
>  mastermind behind efforts to cut taxes for the wealthy and services
>  for everyone else.  

	Such a lie!  Where to begin?  Tax cuts benefited everyone.  I'm sure
it was all quite truamatic for tax-n-spenders, but the record speaks for
itself.  An average growth rate of 3.6%.

> On Baker's watch as Chief-of-Staff: the
>  Gramm-Latta budget and tax cut legislation . . . the deregulation of
>  the S&Ls . . . 

	Gosh, another whopper!  Carter (you remember him) started the S&L
deregulation.  The only (and biggest) mistake for the S&L affair was a) not
changing the liability standards along with the risk standards and b) paying
back every cent instead only the covered amounts.

> Republican efforts to cut Social Security.  (Indeed,

	Reagan and Bush both agreed to increase SS taxes.  Hmm....

>  as Treasury Secretary, Baker ordered the sale of long-term
>  investments held by the Social Security trust fund to tide the
>  government over when it was about to run out of money.
>  [1985 CQ Alm.])

	About to run out of money...until Reagan refinanced it.  Can you say
surplus?  I knew you could.  Can you say SS is a pyramid scheme anyway?  I knew
you could.

>  *    Baker is a trickle-down convert.  In 1988, he said: "What some
>       of us thought might be best termed 'voodoo economics' really
>       turned out to be 'can do' economics."

	No, he was paying lip service to Reagan.  He abandoned supply-side
economics.

>       [Speech to the Jack Kemp Tribute Dinner to the Reagan Revolution
>       and Supply-Side Economics, 12/01/88]

	Speaking of the revolution, read my series on how Bush derailed it.
> 
>  *    At the same dinner, he said: "I am proud to have spent the last
>       3 1/2 years . . . defending and advancing supply side economic
>       principles." [ibid.]

	Too bad he didn't do that for the next four years.

>       Baker and the S&Ls
> 
>       As Treasury Secretary from 1985-1988, Baker presided over the
>  most disastrous financial debacle in recent history: the $500 billion
>  S&L scandal.

	A problem for the reasons stated above.  Neither one of which was
Baker's doing.

>  *    Baker ignored warnings from senior regulators about the looming
>       disaster. On June 5, 1985, FDIC Chair FDIC chair William Isaac
>       wrote Baker a letter marked "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" and warning:
> 
>         When we got together a few months ago in your office, I
>         told you that one of my principle concerns about the
>         financial system was the condition of the thrift industry
>         and the ability of the [S&L depositor insurance fund] to
>         cope with the problems.  About that time I requested our
>         staff to prepare an analysis of the thrift industry . . .
>         the study concludes that the problems of the thrift
>         industry are  of such proportions that they will soon
>         overwhelm the ability of the FSLIC to deal with them
>         unless something major is done to shore up the FSLIC.

	Or unless (here comes the reality hammer) you change the liability
standards to acknowledge the increased risk standards.  *BOOM*.
> 
>  *    Baker testified that no more taxpayer funds would be needed.
>       "We think the regulators are doing a good job," he told the
>       House Banking Committee on June 15, 1988.  Baker added: "We
>       think the problem is being dealt with."  Shortly before the
>       election, he told the National Press Club that Bush opposed a
>       taxpayer bialout.  Shortly after the election, regulators
>       suddenly announced that a huge taxpayer rescue would, in fact,
>       be needed.

	No surprise there.  Politics as usual.  Note that there were no
congressslime running their re-election campaign on raising taxes to pay for
*the short sightedness of regulation*.

>       Baker and Iraqgate.
> 
>       Last night, Bush said, "I'm going to say to Jim Baker when this
>  campaign is over, 'you do in domestic affairs what you've done in
>  foreign affairs.'"  Presumably, this is supposed to be reassuring.
> 
>       But Baker played a central role in what is emerging as a major
>  scandal and cover-up: the secret policy of aid to Saddam Hussein.
>  For as recent revelations indicate, James Baker stretched logic and
>  common sense in his efforts to appease Saddam.  Baker and other
>  senior Bush administration officials vigorously supported and armed
>  Saddam Hussein's regime in the years before he invaded Kuwait.  Baker

	Simply not true.  If you want to prove that you are not a liar, provide
a list of the weapons that Bush & Co. sold to Iran.  Of course you can't
because we did no such thing.  (Loans are another story.)

>  repeatedly intervened when other government officials balked at
>  supplying Saddam with credits (which were used to buy arms) and other

	Ahhh, there's the rub.  If someone comes to you asks for money to buy
food, and you give it to them, who is to "blame" if they buy something else
instead?  The only bone of contention here is whether Bush knew that weapons
were being purchased.  Becuase of Saddam's shell games, Saddam was making it
look like he was indeed buying grain with the money.

>  aid.  And Judge Marvin Shoob ruled last week in the BNL trial, "It is
>  apparent that decisions were made at the top levels of the United
>  States Justice Department, State Department, Agriculture Department
>  and within the intelligence community to shape this case and that
>  information may have been withheld from local prosecutors seeking to
>  investigate the case or used to steer the prosecution."

	Which is not the same as arming Iraq.

>  *    He loves to fly, and it shows.  Baker used a military jet to
>       make 11 strictly personal trips over a two year period, at a
>       cost to taxpayers of $371,599.  He said he was "shocked" by this

	Cabinet level people are allowed, even encouraged to use federal
flights.  They have important business to attent to.  Should they use standby
at the airport instead?

>       figure, and vowed never to do it again; shortly thereafter he
>       took a well-publicized commercial flight. (AP, 4/3/92)

	Saving money is one thing, saving time is another.  Baker is one of the
people with legitimate reasons to use federal flights.  Or will Slick Willie
and Al "did not" Gore be using "super saver" seats?

	Such vigorous attacks on Baker!  You'd think he was the candidate. 
(Well, he should be, but that's another thread :)

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton