From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:29:50 GMT

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? Or the Representative 
>Republican leader? 

That's the next meeting.  Today or later... I forget the time.

>I thought Bill would be not be partisan about his 
>activities. I thought he was a new kind of Democrat.....

>In addition:

>Bill Clinton said ("Putting People First"):
>    "I will take the following steps:
>    * Staff reductions. I will reduce the White House staff by 25 percent and
>      challenge Congress to do the same.

>But Monday 11/16/92, Bill backed off on the promise of asking Congress
>to cut their staff 25%. He now says Congress should just lower their staffs
>over time. [He still plans to pare back the White House staff].

One reason is that they took staff cuts last year, UNLIKE the White House.  
He's still challenged them by doing his own cuts -- they just wimped out.
Sounds like Clinton is willing to compromise -- much better than GRIDLOCK.

>He also said:
>    * 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.

Well, I thought the line-item veto was Bush's campaign promise!  It's nice 
to see that Clinton is partially approving an idea strongly supported by 
Republicans.  Sounds like a non-partisan president to me.

>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.

He's still going to do it, but he will bring it in slowly so the bigots 
won't howl so loud.  Sounds like a decent compromise -- much better than 
GRIDLOCK.

>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' ".

His point was that you had to restore taxes to the rich BEFORE you could 
ask other Americans to accept additional taxes, if necessary.  This doesn't 
sound like a change in his position to me.  "Starting from a fair tax 
system" means restoring taxes to the rich that were removed by Reagan/Bush.

>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 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...

Look at all the Defense contractors that came to Reagan with 
their outstretched hands when he was elected.  Didn't that bother you? 
I'd rather that our government sponsor social and economical reforms rather 
than death.

Sounds like Clinton knows the "art of the deal", which is how things 
get done in business and government.  Looks like we get to kiss GRIDLOCK 
good-bye and see our government in motion again.  I'm looking forward 
to it.

P.S.  I see no indication of "spending as usual" in the issues you brought 
up.  Perhaps you are one of those who thinks it's "spending" if we spend it 
on people and "national security" if we spend it on bombs.  Give me 
government for the people instead of bombs anyday.

>Just my opinion....

Mine, too.

>Joe


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns