home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
080993
/
0809unk.000
< prev
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
83 lines
<text id=93TT0163>
<title>
Aug. 09, 1993: The Political Interest
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
Aug. 09, 1993 Lost Secrets Of The Maya
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
The Political Interest, Page 25
He's No George Bush
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Michael Kramer
</p>
<p> After months of fretting that Bill Clinton isn't a New Democrat
after all, that he's an unreconstructed liberal masquerading
as a centrist, many pundits have changed their mind. Clinton,
they now argue, is little different from George Bush. Recalling
a litany of unfulfilled campaign pledges and a budget heavy
on deficit reduction, the New York Times complains that Clinton
"promised voters more than a rehash." That's right, and only
the President's fabulists would deny that the rhetoric of 1992
rings a bit hollow in 1993. But overall, the rap is bum. America
isn't close to beginning "a great national journey" (as Clinton
grandly advertised his proposed departures last February), but
the budgetary road about to be taken is nothing like any Bush
would have traveled.
</p>
<p> For openers, Clinton deserves considerable praise for having
pushed so vigorously for an honest whack at the nation's deficit.
The infamous 1990 budget agreement, to which the current plan
is so often falsely compared, was dishonest in almost every
key respect, primarily because its assumptions were bogus. With
Bush's agreement, Congress blithely adopted a set of pie-chart-in-the-sky
economic projections almost double the average predicted by
private forecasters. When the revenues did not match expectations--and health-care expenses soared--the deficit exploded.
Clinton, by contrast, has embraced decidedly conservative growth
estimates (lower, in fact, than most private economists foresee)
and has forthrightly admitted that the entire enterprise will
fail if health reform isn't implemented.
</p>
<p> If the emphasis on debt taming is neo-Republican--an accommodation
to Ross Perot and the financial establishment's doomsayers--the methodology of Clinton's deficit reduction is very much
his own. Tax "fairness" (to use the President's word) is real.
Nearly 80% of the increases fall on the top 1.2% of taxpayers,
a refutation of supply-side theory. The 4.3 cents-per-gal. hike
in gasoline taxes can be criticized as a broken promise since
it hits the middle class hardest, but given that the typical
driver will pay only about $33 more a year, the burden is hardly
staggering. The tax-rate increase on Social Security benefits
for the wealthiest recipients (from 50% to 85%) is not onerous;
in fact, it should be welcomed as a long-overdue step toward
means-testing entitlement programs, which drive up the deficit
more than anything else.
</p>
<p> Only some of Clinton's social programs will survive Congress
(and most at levels far below the President's initial proposals),
but the earned income tax credit will rise dramatically, a significant
promise conspicuously kept. The EITC supplements the pay of
those whose earnings fall below the poverty line, a full 18%
of the work force, but it has never closed the gap completely.
Clinton pledged to do just that ("If you work 40 hours a week
you [should] no longer be in poverty"). By delivering, says
Senator Bill Bradley, the President has fashioned "the most
important antipoverty program in 20 years." The five-year, approximately
$21 billion EITC increase shows that Clinton is willing to back
rhetoric with money and not simply deliver homilies about a
"thousand points of light."
</p>
<p> If Congress approves the deal its leaders are crafting, the
President will take what one of his aides calls "a victory lap
around the country to make sure he gets some credit." All but
the most cynical (and those with a personal agenda) should applaud--and Clinton will deserve it.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>