From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: The Clinton Program
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 16:50:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.230756.10427@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.214902.1411@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.003441.29983@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>It seems Mulroney may be right...
>>>
>>>The Clinton stimulus is going to be no larger than $60 billion...
>>>and probably a lot less.
>>>
>>>...his economic conference is recommending, even with all his
>>>basically "liberal" economists stimuli from nothing to $60 billion
>>>at the most, with most advocating only about $30 billion.
>>>
>>>If you compare the sizes of the economy, the Canadian equivalent
>>>of that is about $3 billion, which is essential in the range
>>>the action Mulroney and Mazankowski have taken...
>>
>>>Also, the emphasis is going to be on deficit reduction in the
>>>medium term...
>>
>>i'll believe it when i see it. the politicians always want to
>>spend money in the short term and reduce the deficit in the
>>medium or long term. the results speak for themselves.
>>
>
>But for Canadians, our news media is not doing a good job of
>reporting that Clinton at least pays lip service, and in a much
>stronger way than even the Canadian Tories do to deficit reduction
>in the medium term.

the lip service, in some ways, is worse than nothing. it lulls
some of the people who are generally concerned to sleep, while nothing
gets done. Reagan started his term with strong statements about how
the debt and deficit were out of control. look what he did.


>The Canadian Tories restraint is pretty much
>limited to maintaining the current $30 billion dollar deficits
>into perpetuity, with economic growth diminishing the relative size
>of the deficit...

Clinton's plan also calls for the US to "grow" its way out of the
problem. refer to his platform book. it is also based on ridiculous
assumptions which won't work.

>Clinton still claims to halve the
>actual dollar value of the US deficit by the end of his first term...

he's full of it. this would ensure that he would not get re-elected
in '96. and you can bet that's all he's thinking about now. even
before his inauguration.

>Bentsen and Panetta his nominees for Treasury and for OMB are two
>of the Democrats in Congress whose rhetoric is strongest against
>increasing deficits and who want deficit reduction sooner than
>later.

rhetoric is the operative word.

>>>The capital gains tax cut on long held assets, and
>>>health care reform, the education and training initiatives,
>>>and all the Canadian-like social programs all are going to
>>>have to be undertaken in the context of this rather austere
>>>fiscal framework.
>>
>>they can't be. the numbers don't add up. it has been that way
>>since he started his campaign, and it still is that way. the US
>>gov't can't even afford what it has now. and clinton's claim
>>that we will "grow our way out of debt" is the same hooey that
>>reagan used.
>>
>
>I don't really believe that Clinton will be able to reduce the
>deficit in his first term, just like the Tories in Canada failed
>to do so.  What he may be able to do is to solve some of the
>structural problems, like health care reform, which is where
>the really big money is. 

not at the federal level. at the federal level the "big money" is
in entitlements, and he'll have to have a lot more backbone than
he has shown so far to tackle them. 

i saw a news piece the other night which was headlined as "clinton
ready to tackle entitlements" or something like that. i was quite
excited by this. i figured one of two things would be presented:
either a miniscule plan watered down to please the special interests,
or a real plan which would be blasted by the special interests. instead,
it was the worst combination: a watered down plan *still* blasted by
the special interests. the big idea? the increase in age at which social
security can be collected from 65 to 67 over something like *15* years,
as you mention below.
this big plan is a joke compared to the cuts that need to be made, and
*still* there was a furor over it. how do we expect him to do the
real hard stuff?

>Clinton also has not ruled out increasing
>the eligibility age for social security...raising it from 65 to 67...
>I wonder how the NDP and Liberals in Canada would like that.

they wouldn't. that just shows how much worse things are in canada
than they are in the states. but as i said, Clinton's posturing is
so far only that.

>>>Turns out that Clinton is a Mulroneyish Red Tory on fiscal policy.
>>
>>if that is the case, the USA is in serious trouble.
>>your comparison seems to have some valid points on the surface.
>>but at least clinton doesn't have the nerve to call himself
>>a "conservative", progressive or otherwise.
>>
>
>It could be worse...Clinton could be more like a Canadian Liberal
>or an NDP'er. 

true enough.
but if he lets the country go down anyway, it won't matter much.
dead is dead -- you can't really get much worse. maybe it would
just happen faster.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics