Some of my posts spark debate between Bush supporters and Clinton fans, particularly on my Facebook page. I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but Clinton wins that contest hands down. I’m only talking about economic issues, to be sure, so I’m not looking to trigger any discussions about foreign policy or abortion.
Regarding economic issues, perhaps the key thing to understand is that there are many factors which determine economic freedom (which, of course, is related to growth and prosperity). Some people look at a high-profile issue such as taxes, and are tempted to rank Bush higher because he cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, whereas Clinton increased taxes in 1993 (he also cut taxes in 1997, but not as much as he raised them four years earlier).
But while Bush had a better record on taxes, he had a much worse record on spending. And as I wrote in the Washington Examiner a couple of years ago, Bush’s record in other areas was more statist than Clinton’s (and I was writing before the bailouts).
Perhaps the best way of showing the difference between Bush and Clinton is to examine the Economic Freedom of the World annual rankings. Not all the years are available, but the image below clearly shows that economic freedom rose during the Clinton years and fell during the Bush years.
I’m no great fan of Bill Clinton, and I’ll be the first to admit that many of the good things that happened under Clinton were the result of a GOP Congress (in the good old days before they were corrupted by compassionate conservatism). But also keep in mind that Clinton signed into law almost all of the good policies that were enacted during his reign. Likewise, Bush signed into law almost all of the bad policies that were enacted during his reign. If I’m choosing between the economic policies that were implemented by the previous two Presidents, the answer is obvious.
This suggests to me that a pragmatic Democratic President constrained by a principled conservative Congress is preferable to a non-conservative Republican President and an unprincipled Republican Congress. Of course, we could throw in one more possibility and say that both are clearly preferable to a radical President whose worse tendencies are amplified by a liberal Congress with a left-wing ideologue of a Speaker.
http://usa-wethepeople.com/2010/03/how-did-we-the-people-get-in-this-mess/
We seem to agree and that is not good for someone from Florida.
[...] mess because federal government spending has more than doubled since Bill Clinton left office. Bush was a big spender. Obama is a big spender. And Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been big spenders. Now [...]
[...] mess because federal government spending has more than doubled since Bill Clinton left office. Bush was a big spender. Obama is a big spender. And Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been big spenders. Now [...]
[...] mess because federal government spending has more than doubled since Bill Clinton left office. Bush was a big spender. Obama is a big spender. And Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been big spenders. Now [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] That's certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I'm already on record arguing that Clinton's economic record was much better than Bush's performance. [...]
[...] Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush. [...]
[...] Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush. [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush. [...]
[...] Bill Clinton's performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn't have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that's a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton's reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there's no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush. [...]
[...] even Bill Clinton looks pretty good compared to the miserable fiscal policy of the past 10 [...]
[...] even Bill Clinton looks pretty good compared to the miserable fiscal policy of the past 10 [...]
[...] even Bill Clinton looks pretty good compared to the miserable fiscal policy of the past 10 [...]
[...] even Bill Clinton looks pretty good compared to the miserable fiscal policy of the past 10 [...]
[...] even Bill Clinton looks pretty good compared to the miserable fiscal policy of the past 10 [...]
[...] even Bill Clinton looks pretty good compared to the miserable fiscal policy of the past 10 [...]
[...] That’s certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I’m already on record arguing that Clinton’s economic record was much better than Bush’s performance. [...]
[...] than 20 percent of GDP. That still doesn’t bring us back to where we were at the end of the fiscally responsible Clinton years, when federal spending consumed only 18.2 percent of GDP. But after a 10-year spending binge under [...]
[...] than 20 percent of GDP. That still doesn’t bring us back to where we were at the end of the fiscally responsible Clinton years, when federal spending consumed only 18.2 percent of GDP. But after a 10-year spending binge under [...]
[...] than 20 percent of GDP. That still doesn’t bring us back to where we were at the end of the fiscally responsible Clinton years, when federal spending consumed only 18.2 percent of GDP. But after a 10-year spending binge under [...]
[...] less than 20 percent of GDP. That still doesn’t bring us back to where we were at the end of the fiscally responsible Clinton years, when federal spending consumed only 18.2 percent of GDP. But after a 10-year spending binge under [...]
[...] mess because federal government spending has more than doubled since Bill Clinton left office. Bush was a big spender. Obama is a big spender. And Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been big spenders. Now [...]
[...] Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush. [...]
[...] pointed out on several occasions that the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years. Indeed, if we did nothing other than bring federal spending back down to 18.2 percent of GDP [...]
[...] But the ATR numbers correctly show a rising cost of government during the Bush years. And they show a falling burden of government during the Clinton years. [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] the Clinton Administration turned out to be much more market-oriented than either his GOP predecessor or successor, this isn’t quite a man-bites-dog [...]
[...] actions during the 1990s. This interpretation actually does make sense because the burden of the public sector did shrink as a share of GDP during the Clinton years when Republicans controlled Cong…, so it would be accurate to say “we tried their [...]
[...] actions during the 1990s. This interpretation actually does make sense because the burden of the public sector did shrink as a share of GDP during the Clinton years when Republicans controlled Cong…, so it would be accurate to say “we tried their [...]
[...] actions during the 1990s. This interpretation actually does make sense because the burden of the public sector did shrink as a share of GDP during the Clinton years when Republicans controlled Cong…, so it would be accurate to say “we tried their [...]
[...] actions during the 1990s. This interpretation actually does make sense because the burden of the public sector did shrink as a share of GDP during the Clinton years when Republicans controlled Cong…, so it would be accurate to say “we tried their [...]
[...] actions during the 1990s. This interpretation actually does make sense because the burden of the public sector did shrink as a share of GDP during the Clinton years when Republicans controlled Cong…, so it would be accurate to say “we tried their [...]
[...] examined how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]
[...] Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush. [...]
[...] joking when I say I would gladly go back to Bill Clinton. No, he wasn’t a libertarian, but economic freedom increased during his tenure. And I care about [...]
[...] how we balanced the budget in the 1990s and found that spending restraint was the key. The combination of a GOP Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House led to a four-year period of government spending growing by an average of just 2.9 percent each [...]