From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:36:33 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


  I'll give you the short response.

lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>>  In fact, now Clinton and the Democrats are attacking Bush for mentioning
>>getting control of mandatory spending (just like Clinton did to Tsongas
>>in Florida.)  This, above all, is why Clinton lost my support.
>
>Actually, I liked Tsongas's economics much better than Clinton's. But of
>the candidates we got, before you go vote for Bush, remember that

 Me too.  Others disagree, but if Tsongas were running, he may
well have my vote. 

>
>1. His call for caps on mandatory spending was delivered without
>mentioning once *which* entitlements he would freeze, reduce, or whatever.
>2. It was couched in language which insured most listeners didn't know
>what he was talking about.

  If he did, he would ensure his election loss.  As I said, Clinton
is already attacking him on this.  If Bush got into specifics, it
would allow Clinton to do the same to Bush as he did to Tsongas.

  This is a primary issue with me.  Given the choice between someone
who is brave enough to say he will control mandatory spending and
someone who is attacking the idea of controlling mandatory spending
with both with Tsongas and Bush, the choice is clear.  The choice is
_far_ from ideal, but it is clear.

  Please read my other articles for some reference as to how bad I
think the budget and entitlement spending are.


>3. There was no evidence that he was going to propose any cuts/freeze
>to Congress. We now see that when Congress does something unpalatable
>(like raise taxes) as part of a compromise, Bush sandbags them later. So
>suppose Congress gets up the guts to means-test Social Security (or
>whatever). Then Bush hits 'em with "Those aren't the cuts I meant. Oh.,
>I'm sorry. I regret it." Bush rides high and then invades Tonga.
>Congress faces the music and gets cursed out good at home.
  
  I'm not sure what you mean, but see my comments on point #4.

>4. Bush has had four years to do this already and hasn't done it once.
>Why believe him now?
>
  Well, from my reading back when Bush was very popular and it was
thought he would easily slide into the next election victory, his
advisors told him to wait until after the next election and then
rush his new initiatives through in the first year with the new congress.
(This is from 1991 issues of _The Economist_ and _US News and World
Report.  I would have to dig up the exact references.)


  His new initiatives included America 2000 and the mandatory spending
controls.  My perception was reinforced by the latest issue of US News &
World Report.  Basically, Darman kept telling Bush the economy was coming
back so he could ride his popularity to victory without fear of 
the economy bringing him down.  Then, he could push through his new
plans very quickly with the new congress.  

  Politically, if the economy had held up, this was not bad advice.
He has a much better chance of getting his plans through congress 
just after his election and (being a lame-duck) would not have
to worry about the extremely controversial act of getting control
of mandatory spending.  The very reason this spending is so out of
control is because it is supported by very powerful special interests
(such as AARP and Farm lobbiest.)

  Bush's big fault was listening to Darman about the economy and not
taking the political problems of recession/slow growth seriously 
enough.  I'm not sure that there was much that Bush could have done
short-term about the economy (though raising taxes was probably not a good 
idea at all.)  However, from a political standpoint he needed to make
it much more clear to the American people that he was doing everything
he could.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3614 alt.politics.bush:3616