From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:05:42 GMT

 lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>>>4. Bush has had four years to do this already and hasn't done it once.
>>>Why believe him now?
>
>Sugent essentially suggested that Bush was waiting for his 2nd term to
>do this. 

  This is a poor summary of my post.  I hope my points were more clear
to others.   If not, I'm willing to clarify.   You chose to twist
around my points and comments.

Here is what I wrote:

_____________________________________________________________________

>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.


>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.


______________________________________________________________


   A more accurate summary would be that Bush was being advised to:

1) Wait for a congress to come along with which he could work with,
particularly during the brief "honeymoon" period Presidents have
after an election.   This was the most important point by far.
He has a much better chance of getting his undiluted plans
through congress in this brief period next term.  He (clearly) has
almost no chance of getting them through this term.

2) Ride out his popularity into the next election.  This stands by itself,
but includes putting off huge political fights with
large, powerful, but harmful special interest groups
that are likely to be more interested in ensuring his election loss than
working with him if he pushed his plans on
entitlements through just before an election.  These
special interest groups include the trial lawyers
which now back Clinton, AARP, and Farm lobbiests.)  

   Are you defending these special interest groups?  Clinton sure is.
A good reason to vote against him in my mind.  Of course, these groups may
be why Clinton gets elected and our budget and civil justice
problems go unresolved.

  As I said, it isn't bad political advice.  It isn't as if he was
keeping his plans secret, he was just putting off the harmful fights until
after an election year (in which we can see how much gets done)
when a more amenable congress is around. 


3)  If I was reading about his plans back in 1991, I don't see why
you would consider them a "Bush surprise".  It isn't my fault if you
don't read as much as I do.  To twist what I said around to your
conclusion takes a bit of work.   I have heard none of the things
you suggested as even being thought of by the Bush administration.


  You may, of course, twist this to whatever political agenda you like
(and you clearly have.)  I find it somewhat surprising since you tend
to be more rational via e-mail.

  However, I would really appreciate it if you do not "sum up"
my articles.   You leave out many important points in doing so.
I also request that you do not quote out of context, but I (of course)
have no way of enforcing this. :-)


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke