From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 31 Aug 1992 20:01:26 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <vycBr*qV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <17plqeINNnks@agate.berkeley.edu>, Andrew J. Lazarus writes:
>> In article <G8EAr*rU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

Pritcehtt bgan this thread by writing
#Don't you people know anything about how our government operates?  Every bill
#is a compromise.  Each side trades this for that to get what they want.  The
#President traded the tax increase to the Democrats to get something else that
#he wanted.  He now realizes that that was a grave mistake.  However, the tax
#increase was a DEMOCRAT idea forced upon the President by holding his other
#programs hostage.
 
I responded

>> No sweat. Pretend it's 1990 all over again. Tell us what spending cuts
>> Bush (or you) are going to make instead of raising taxes. Be specific.
 
>> GHWB welshed on supporting the painful part of the compromise, but I
>> didn't notice his going back on the continued spending -- "other
>> programs" -- that went with it.

Purusant to the Republican maxim that the best defense is a good
offense, Pritchett now writes

>You are not paying attention.  Go back and read what I wrote.

I'm looking. I don't see anywhere where you wrote what GHWB or yourself
were going to do differently. For example, if we maintained the same
spending programs as in 1990 without the tax increases, are you prepared
to accept the responsiblity for the even-larger deficit? If you wish to
cut spending, tell us which programs you want to cut. Tell us which
programs Bush asked Congress to cut instead of raising taxes (hint: you
will have to search long for this list; it is the political equivalent
of vaporware). Bush wants a line-item veto? (So, BTW, does Clinton) OK,
give us the list of projects Bush wanted removed from the budget with
the line-item veto. (Hint: no such list exists -- make up your own,
giving dollar figures, and let's judge them on their merits.) The
Democrats didn't put a tax increase because they are Satanic (Buchanan
and the Quayle in-laws notwithstanding), but because they couldn't find
any other way to reduce the deficit -- AND NEITHER DID BUSH. However,
since Bush is now backing out of his comproise, I DARE YOU AGAIN: tell
us what he should have done differently and be specific.
I want to know what program he would approve if given a 2nd chance, not
you repeating that he would veto now the plan he signed then.

For comparison, I don't like Pete Wilson's California budget, but at
least he put one on the table and if the public doesn't like the
results, he'll pay the price. Not Bush, and not (apparently) you.

Instead of answering my quite-specific question, Pritchett continued
 
>> Which is the Free Lunch party again?

>The Democrats, of course.  What liberal special interest group is there that hasn't
>been promised big taxpayer bucks?

[long imitation of Clinton deleted]

I seem to recall Bush promised a job training plan, a health plan
(cheaper than Clinton, but nonzero), and an across-the-board tax cut.
However, he didn't mention how to pay for any of them EITHER.

Your turn.

(Sorry about the length, but it seems Pritchett needs things spelled
out in great detail.)

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women