From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:35:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.113955.1974@cl.cam.ac.uk> jb145@panther.cl.cam.ac.uk (J. Boyan) writes:
>
>5) He's just a Tax & Spend Liberal.  Ho ho ho, the Republicans have
>already started in on this one, unbelievable though it seems.  This
>one still qualifies as a character issue, because Bush transformed the
>"L-word" from a philosophy into a label.  I'll take the 3 pieces
>separately:
>
Taxes are, after all, the best mechanism the Democrats can use to punish
people who have achieved in the name of social engineering.  

Democrats prefer the equality of slavery to the inequality of freedom.
They presuppose that man can be equal when it is obvious that we are not
either mentally or physically.  They are happy to take the property of 
the rich but would they, in the name of equality, be willing to put lead
weights on Michael Jordan's legs so that I could have an equal opportunity
to play in the NBA?  NO - they are hypocrites, only fighting for equality
on the surface while hoping inside to cripple the achievers.
>
>   TAX: Guess what?  There's a big big deficit right now and we'd
>better start paying it back!  In particular, the very very wealthy
>profited enormously over the past 12 years; Clinton is morally correct
>to try to right this situation by raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
>
That people keep the property which they earned is what I consider to
be moral.  That you seem to believe that you have a greater claim to this
property than they do is awkward.  Did you earn it? No.

Now, do the wealthy have an obligation to pay taxes, yes.  Do they owe 
more because of any reason other than you want to use their money? No.
I wouldn't want you to be my banker, I might find my account emptied
because you had a need that you deemed sufficient to take my property.
>
>   SPEND: Clinton has indeed promised a lot of expensive programs.
>It's Big Government but with a twist: ALL of the programs are designed
>to be long-term investments in American growth.  From education to
>infrastructure, industrial equipment, and the environment, it's clear

There is a seemingly infinite number of good ideas which the government
might be best suited to accomplish.  Which of these do we need and why
do they always require a great deal of money?  

>(Now please remind me what Bush's plan to balance the budget
>is?  Oh yeah, it's Congress' fault.  Can we say the words "veto power"?)

What would you have the President do?  Veto the _one_ spending bill
and shutdown the government (Defense of our shores --- welfare) ?

Give the President (Democratic or Republican) the line item veto and
restore the veto to it's intended purpose.  That is, a qualified veto
(one that _can_ be voted down by the House) that a President is not
afraid to use.  When applied to the spending bill from the House, the
veto is a vitiated tool and the balance of power is weighted heavily
toward the legislature.

Then blame Bush, not before - the Democrats create an impossible 
situation and then blame the President for the way in which they
have defined a bill.


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:889 talk.politics.guns:18069 talk.abortion:29144