From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:59:15 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> >The problem is that there is no extension of the plan past the first year.
> >The OMB has no long-term goals for the budget outside of Gramm-Rudman.
>
> Until year 1 is started, why should they plan as if it was in place?
> The plan hasn't been started, so it is rather silly to act as if it has.

That's essentially one of the problems with the Bush administration.  The
attitude is 'well, we don't need to think about that now, because it's not
going to happen.'  Lack of planning is irresponsible, particularly on fiscal
matters.

>
> >> What would you have him do?  Veto the budget and let the fed govt
> >> coast (like CA is doing) until he gets something acceptable?  As
> >> long as Congress won't accept his plan, that's his only option.
> >
> >Why not?  He's wielded the veto stamp often enough on abortion.  If he feels
> >strongly about balancing the budget, why not threaten to veto a bill that wi
> >not conform to an overall deficit-lowering strategy?
>
> Okay, so now we have an advocate of "going to war with Congress".
> I didn't expect that from a Clinton supporter; Clinton is pushing
> cooperating with Congress.

You don't get it.  Bush thinks he's right, to the extent that Congress is
wrong and should be radically changed.  That's what comes out of him in
campaign mode.  Problem is that he doesn't follow-up on that.  If Congress is
so wrong in its focus and direction, then he should fight them.  He should 'go
to war' with them.  That would show that he has the moral courage to back up
his campaign rhetoric with deeds.  By not going to war against Congress in a
real sense (not just Congress-bashing during the campaign season), Bush's
cynicism regarding the intelligence of the electorate is all too clear.

Declaring war against Congress is not necessary, of course.  Reagan proved
that.  He got what he wanted from Congress.  The way he did it was to have Jim
Baker and Howard Baker (among others) go up to the Hill and schmooze.  When
that didn't work, he'd take his case directly to the people, who would then
blast their Congresscritters' offices the day after the prime-time speech.  It
worked, whether or not one actually agrees with what was done.  Bush doesn't do
this.  He proposes plans, lends campaign lip-service to them, then lets them
rot on the Hill.  An article in Newsweek this week called it 'paralysis as
policy.'

>
> >> No one ever claimed that he wasn't.  We're arguing about how we want
> >> to get out.  We've been trying the Clinton plan (more taxes and
> >> "investment") since the 1990 "deal"; is it working?
> >
> >The Reagan/Bush years have been nothing but borrow and spend.  How is this
> >different from tax and spend?  What we need is substantive cuts in programs.
> >Bush is unable to make those cuts.
>
> Bush is at least interested in a freeze on borrow and spend, with a
> move toward a decrease.  While we can argue about how possible that
> decrease is, Clinton is asking for an INCREASE in borrow and spend;
> the tax increases won't pay for the increased spending.
>
> We've effectively followed the Clinton policy since 1990.  Is more of
> the same going to to do any better?

Again, what Bush says and what he does are painfully different.  He *says* he's
for a freeze on borrow and spend, but he keeps signing appropriations bills.
He *says* he wants to cut government spending, then proposes a job re-training
program without explaining what he's going to cut to pay for it.  'At least
interested' isn't good enough, coming from GHWB.

>
> >If we move away from borrow-and-spend, we stop writing checks agains the
> >future.  Faced with the prospect of more taxes or less spending (borrowing
> >removed from the equation), the voters will be forced to allow politicians t
> >make tough choices.
>
> That's all well and good, but Clinton is even further from that than
> Bush is.
>

At least Clinton has a plan.  George Herbert Walker Bush is a cynical liar who
cannot be trusted to provide even basic ideas for running this country.  I'm
ready to take the chance on the unknown commodity, given how repulsive the
incumbent is.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3654 alt.politics.clinton:3653 alt.politics.elections:12068 soc.women:16005 alt.feminism:325