From: giovin@medr0.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: A different prediction
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:59:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.233953.3994@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.225440.8335@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

>Is Clinton going to get the line-item veto out of Congress that he
>claims to want in his "Putting People First Plan"? Also, how come
>no mention was made of the line-item veto in the Democratic Platform,
>despite the fact that every other point of Clinton's plan was included?
	Of course it can't be in the platform since Congress has 
been opposed to the line item veto.  It's the same thing as their
opposition to cutting the capital gains tax (which both Bush
and Clinton want) and their opposition to the Balanced 
Budget Ammendment.  It's ok with the Democrats if Clinton wants
something, but not if Bush want it.  Truly this is evidence of purposeful 
gridlock on the part of Congress.  The president has wanted what
he believes is good for the country. Congress has wanted what
they believe happens to be good for them politically. (IMHO)

>> 	The NAFTA will fall apart when Canada pulls out of the 
>> agreement. Mexico will give up after Clinton asks to renegotiate parts
>> of it, and members of Congress create strong opposition.
>> 	China will finally be dropped from MFN trade statis.
>
>NAFTA is dead because Clinton will have to side with protectionists.
>I agree.
Clinton's actually been saying he wants a "better" version of NAFTA
so maybe the whole thing won't be canned.  This NAFTA debate is 
something I really don't understand-- I've been hearing 
"analysts" from the Democrat and Republican sides both 
saying NAFTA will be great for the US and will give us far more
than the Mexicans get out of it.  Yet, there seem to be a
handful of people -- maybe it's just from the auto industry? --
that oppose it.  Does anyone have more information for me?  I'd
like to hear a solid argument against it, since the best I've
heard is that certain industries may or may not loose jobs
during a transition period.
>>Congress 
>> 	Clinton signs into law such bills as the Family Leave Bill,
>> a higher Minimum Wage Law, stronger Environmental Protection Laws, and
>> most importantly, a National Health Care Law. Conservatives are shocked
>> when all this actually can be paid for without raising taxes on the 
>> middle class. Huge cuts are made in the defense budget, including 
>> hundreds of closed military bases in Europe. Taxes are raised on the top
>> tax bracket. Much to everyone's surprise, Congress does make significant
>> campaign reforms.
He also kills the gag rule, and possibly (although this may be 
later in his term) ties voter registration with driver's licenses
(I think the president killed this one right?).

>Clinton signs virtually every bill that crosses his desk. No surprise
>there. Conservatives are shocked when liberals can actually pay for
>*anything*, except when they pledge to do it out of the defense budget,
>or by punishing anyone who succeeds without their help. Congress adopts
>public financing of Congressional campaigns, and celebrates by voting
>themselves another pay raise. 
This last point is probably why Congress is so willing to raise taxes.
They never pay them since they can raise their salary by the new
difference in tax rates.
 
>> Election 1996:
>> 
>> 	Clinton will be re-elected, but not because he is a great 
>> president. He will be re-elected because the religious right in the 
>> Republican Party will blame Bush's defeat on several moderate policies
>> and therefore assume control of the party. The Republican Party will 
>> still not talk about issues during the election.
	Or Republicans like William Weld with a libertarian 
streak in them (i.e. against regulating social issues) gain 
popularity and shift the party closer to the center.  Possible. 

Rocky Giovinazzo

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23380 talk.politics.misc:59412