From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Clinton Program
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:07:56 GMT

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 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...and as such they have halved the relative size of
the federal deficit in relation to the size of the economy since
they came into office in 1984.  Clinton still claims to halve the
actual dollar value of the US deficit by the end of his first term...
the media, the Liberals, and the NDP would call the Canadian Tories
most vile things if they actually talked about doing that in Canada
in four years...that our federal deficit would be down to $15 billion
dollars in 4 years.  This part of the Clinton economic plan goes
somewhat underreported or under emphasized in Canada.

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.

>>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.  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.

>>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. 

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9515 talk.abortion:52412