Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, March 25, 1998 | |
Why We're Better Off With Clinton |
Republicans generally believe that Bill Clinton deserves no credit whatsoever for the robust economy of the last five years. They believe that the tough decisions made by Ronald Reagan, George Bush, the Republican Congress and Republican Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve deserve all of the credit. Nevertheless, it is the nature of politics that presidents get credit for everything good that happens on their watch and the blame for everything bad, regardless of whether they in fact had anything to do with it. Although Republicans bewail their bad luck in having the positive consequences of their actions come on a Democrat's watch, there is a bright side. Consider what would have happened if Bush had won in 1992, rather than losing to Clinton. He, rather than Clinton, would have reaped the benefits of the economic expansion and the stock market rise. Inevitably, therefore, Bush's policies, rather than Clinton's, would have been deemed responsible for the happy state of affairs. Consequently, Bush's abandonment of his "no new taxes" pledge would have appeared farsighted and statesmanlike, rather than craven and weak, as most Republicans saw it. Moreover, it would have certified Dick Darman, Bush's budget director and architect of the 1990 budget deal, as a genius. Therefore, Darmanomics would have been enshrined as official Republican economic policy for all time. Furthermore, had Bush won reelection, it is extremely unlikely that Republicans would have taken control of Congress in 1994. That resulted largely from voters' revulsion for Clinton's early missteps -- the health care plan, the aborted stimulus plan, gays in the military, etc. Moreover, given voters' seeming unwillingness to trust either party with complete control of the federal government, it is most likely that Democrats would have continued to control Congress through a second Bush term. Thus Republicans need to ask themselves whether they are better off today, with control of Congress but with Clinton in the White House, than they would be if Bush had won instead in 1992, leading to a triumph of Darmanomics and continued Democratic control of Congress? I think that the answer unquestionably is that Republicans are better off because Bush lost. In the long run, control of Congress is much more important to the direction of domestic policy than is the White House. The White House, of course, still dominates foreign policy, but in an era when the Communist threat has vanished that is much less important than it was during the Cold War. Although Republicans have made many missteps in their control of Congress, hopefully they will learn to do better in the future and use their power to deal with some of the significant problems Clinton has ignored: Social Security reform, tax reform and tort reform, to name a few. I also think Republicans are vastly better off not having Dick Darman calling the shots on economic policy. One example of Darmanomics that continues to bedevil Republicans is the PAYGO rule that he wrote into law, which prevents Congress from enacting tax cuts even when there is a budget surplus. With Darman running economic policy, last year's budget deal undoubtedly would have involved further tax increases, rather than the tax cut Republicans are so proud of. This would have guaranteed that Republicans would never, ever get control of Congress. In short, I believe Republicans are better off today because of Bush's defeat in 1992. The banishment of Dick Darman from the ranks of economic policymaking is almost a sufficient benefit. But gaining control of Congress clearly makes it a net plus. However, Republicans must continue to remain vigilant lest Darman, like Count Dracula, rises again from his political grave. Source: Bruce Bartlett (senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis), March 25, 1998. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |