From: privette@frodo.colorado.edu (Jeff Privette)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:30:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.055424.12501@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

|> vacuum. The Democrat Congress dominates where, when, and how much is
|> spent on various programs. They have a 50 year track record of ignoring
|> Presidential budgets and doing as they please.

Then vote out your Congress members.  Don't use your fear of Congress
to justify keeping fresh ideas and leadership out of the White House.
Bush is perpetuating this "fear" vote and you seem to have bitten.  (check
your history by the way.  In many of the last 12 years Congress has spent
*less* than the President proposed in his budget.)

  A Democrat in the White
|> House has a slightly better chance of getting some of his programs
|> enacted, but only at the cost of rubber stamping a lot of other programs
|> demanded by Congress.

Only slightly better than Bush's chance?  You are deceiving yourself (or
listening to campaign pitches too much).  Even Reagan was more successful
with Congress, but that is because he *worked* with Congress to pass his
agenda.  Most conservative writers that I've read readily admit disappointment
in Bush's neglect of pressuring/working/leading/bargaining with Congress
to pursue his agenda.  No wonder Congress views Bush as weak and goes on 
as it wishes.  As the leading moderate voice in the Democratic Party for the
last 10 years, Clinton can expect more success I believe at leading
Congress and even enjoy some support from moderate conservatives.  Wouldn't 
that be a nice change: seeing the cogs of government begin turning again (you
will pay their salaries whether this happens or not...).  In the last 4 
years, we have only seen the Federal government get mired down and basically 
not work for anybody, anywhere  (except, arguably, for the richest 1%).  
That is the biggest tragedy of all. 

|> Many of the leading economists say that the US would already be well 
|> into recovery if it weren't for the massive tax hike that Congress 
|> wrangled out of Bush. 

Yea, right.  ...and an across the board 1% tax reduction will also
solve our problems.  The problems facing the US are much more complex
than that, and such gimmicks -- used by both candidates -- will do nothing.
What we need are fresh, comprehensive plans to deal with such things
as welfare reform, health care, etc.  Clinton has an established record
of experimenting with new approaches to such problems.  Not all have worked;
many have.  While trying these pilot programs in Arkansas, he has balanced
the budget 12 straight years.  Change can happen in a fiscally responsible 
manner, but you have to be willing to trust that change can happen for 
the good and not vote on fear.  If you simply lack any such trust, then
you should move.

How much bigger will
|> the deficit be in four years? 

You seem to forget it was Reagan who tripled the national debt, not Carter
or even Bush.  In this decade of fiscal concern -- heightened by the S&L
debacle and the House Bank scandel that spurred a postwar record of incumbant
primary losses -- Clinton can kiss '96 goodbye and the Democrats can kiss the
next 20 years goodbye if he presides over foolish spending.  But this is a 
party working to redefine itself from the Kennedy style of liberalism and
certainly it is led by a more moderate voice (witness, for instance, Clinton's
lukewarm reception of the labor union endorsement or his support of capital
punishment or his desire for welfare reform).  Your arguments against 
Kennedy, Johnson and Carter are understandable yet show your ignorance of
Clinton's idealogy and record. 

International affairs is the major province
|> of the President, and there Bush's record is much better.

Sure it is.  And Carter had much more international experience
than Reagan did in '80.  But that did not preclude Reagan from international
leadership.

 Do you
|> believe Clinton can do better than an experienced leader like Bush
|> with his military and spook experience?

I'm not sure what you mean by "spook experience."  If you are referring to
Clinton's opposition to the Vietnam War, I must say I think the bigger
coward was Quayle who *supported* the War but wouldn't subject himself to it.
As unethical at it may seem, history shows the US government subjectively preferred sending high school dropouts and minorities to the war before 
Rhodes Scholars.  That is simply the bare truth of the matter.  As for 
future leadership, every President surrounds himself with knowledgeable
professionals (incl. the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to help insure military
decisions are well thought out.  Obviously, armed service experience does not 
ensure intelligent leadership, and certainly the lack of service does not
preclude it.  Did Margaret Thatcher serve in the Royal Armed Forces?  
Was she an international leader?  Obviously.  Your argument here is weak.

For fun, you should read the current issue of Newsweek where Schwartzkopf (sp?).
Basically says that the Persian Gulf war would have been easier if Bush 
had just handed over the task to the professional servicemen (and
women) and then stayed out of it.  Perhaps a little knowledge is the more
dangerous thing! :)

-Jeff