From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:05:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.230956.21992@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1bho65INN2ec@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>In <1992Oct14.144919.13588@oakhill.sps.mot.com> Patrick J. McGuinness writes:

>>>Okay, the facts:
>>>His [Clinton]proposal won't raise the amount of money he claims, and will
>>>further dampen the economy. This will leave him with two choices:
>>>raise taxes on lower income taxpayers, or increase the deficit.
>>>	Neither is acceptable.

>>I have some problems with the Clinton plan, myself. But let's look at
>>the Bush plan. Across the board tax cut. Capital gains tax cut.
>>Indexing. Export subsidies. Hurricane relief, including rebuilding
>>Homestead AFB. Claimed deficit reduction. Health care plan. Job training.

>>Is there something missing?

>Yes. Read the "Agenda for American Renewal" to get the rest of it.
>Education reform, legal reform, incentives to revitalize entrepreneurial
>capitalism, increasing trade through agreements like NAFTA,
>spending controls, and "keep the streets safe" crime proposals.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You mean "crime causing WarOnCivilLiberties" proposals.

>>Yes. Not one clue anywhere about how to pay for it. Not one!

>He is way ahead of Clinton on this score. He has actually proposed
>real caps on entitlements, something which Clinton hasn't done.

"Caps on entitlements," huh? 

Unfortunately, he has opposed *both* touching Social Security and
"rationing health care."  Without doing these things, caps on
entitlements is an empty phrase, carrying *less* information than
"cutting waste."  That *is* all of entitlements.

>He has other proposals to cut and control spending, line item
>veto, etc., but curbing entitlements is what really matters.

Yeah, right.  He wants a line item veto, but he won't tell us what he'll cut.
He wants it because it sounds good, not because it will do anything.

>He also support the Balanced Budget Amendment, which we need
>(but Clinton opposes).  He also has *not* proposed a plethora of
>expensive new programs that will make matters worse.

The Balanced Budget amendment won't work.  All you have to do is look at
how it 'works' in states to see the problem.  Among other things, you
have the problem with enforcement.  What happens when Congress and the
President get together and pass a ketchup budget, like they did a few
times in Reagan's early years?  (It was called a ketchup budget because
the only way it would have been balanced was if they discovered a way of
turning ketchup into gold.)  Does the Supreme Court step in and rewrite
it?  You judicial restraintists would have a fit over that one.

The *only* good thing about the balanced budget amendment proposals was
that they would have required an actual official declaration of war in
order to run a deficit for war purposes.

You haven't (and he hasn't) actually listed what he'd cut if there were
a balanced budget amendment.

>IMHO, of the three plans out there, and I've read all three, Bush's plan
>is the best one in terms of growing the economy.  It won't cut the
>deficit like Perot's plan probably will, but I have already said
>that it's mistaken "Hoovernomics" to put the deficit ahead of the
>economy in priorities. 

>Clinton's plan is bad for both the economy *and* the deficit.
>He is counting on higher revenues from his tax increases to pay
>for his spending programs. It ain't gonna happen.

And Bush is counting on mystic growth from his tax cuts to pay for the
programs that are already there, in addition to the tax cuts themselves.
It ain't gonna happen.

Bush is utterly ignoring the deficit. 

Perot is attacking it head-on; a good idea, but not during a recession.

Clinton at least acknowledges it's there.  He knows the public doesn't
want to deal with it, so he's only proposing dealing with it gradually.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc