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.
[…] overall economic freedom increased during the Clinton years. And when the burden of government is reduced,that creates more opportunity for upward advancement […]
[…] overall economic freedom increased during the Clinton years. And when the burden of government is reduced, that creates more opportunity for upward advancement […]
[…] It doesn’t justify his bad policies, but it’s worth noting that Obama’s merely continuing a bad trend that started under Bush. […]
[…] And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The burden of government spending almost doubled during the Bush years, the federal government accumulated more power, and the regulatory state expanded. No wonder economic freedom contracted under Bush after expanding under Clinton. […]
[…] bottom line was that the overall burden of government declined by a semi-significant amount. Which presumably helps to explain why the economy enjoyed good growth and job creation in the […]
[…] always had a soft spot in my heart for Bill Clinton. In part, that’s because economic freedom increased and the burden of government spending was reduced during his time in […]
[…] It doesn’t justify his bad policies, but it’s worth noting that Obama’s merely continuing a bad trend that started under Bush. […]
[…] Yes, Clinton did raise tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his reign. […]
[…] you can see, the United States score improved significantly during the Clinton years, showing that economic freedom was expanding and the size and scope of government was […]
[…] always had a soft spot in my heart for Bill Clinton. In part, that’s because economic freedom increased and the burden of government spending was reduced during his time in […]
[…] always had a soft spot in my heart for Bill Clinton. In part, that’s because economic freedom increased and the burden of government spending was reduced during his time in […]
[…] Yes, Clinton did raise tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his reign. […]
[…] what we now know about the increase in economic freedom under Clinton and the loss in economic freedom under Bush, is anybody surprised that the economy did better under Clinton than it did under […]
[…] better in most other areas. That being said, I’m quite worried that we’ve dropped from 3rd place in the overall Economic Freedom of the World rankings when Bill Clinton left office to 18th place in the most recent rankings, so the trend obviously isn’t very […]
[…] better in most other areas. That being said, I’m quite worried that we’ve dropped from 3rd place in the overall Economic Freedom of the World rankings when Bill Clinton left office to 18th place in the most recent rankings, so the trend obviously isn’t very […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] Yes, Clinton did raise tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his reign. […]
[…] you can see, the United States score improved significantly during the Clinton years, showing that economic freedom was expanding and the size and scope of government was […]
[…] you can see, the United States score improved significantly during the Clinton years, showing that economic freedom was expanding and the size and scope of government was […]
[…] you can see, the United States score improved significantly during the Clinton years, showing that economic freedom was expanding and the size and scope of government was […]
[…] It doesn’t justify his bad policies, but it’s worth noting that Obama’s merely continuing a bad trend that started under Bush. […]
[…] It doesn’t justify his bad policies, but it’s worth noting that Obama’s merely continuing a bad trend that started under Bush. […]
[…] And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The burden of government spending almost doubled during the Bush years, the federal government accumulated more power, and the regulatory state expanded. No wonder economic freedom contracted under Bush after expanding under Clinton. […]
[…] And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The burden of government spending almost doubled during the Bush years, the federal government accumulated more power, and the regulatory state expanded. No wonder economic freedom contracted under Bush after expanding under Clinton. […]
[…] Yes, Clinton did raise tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his reign. […]
[…] what we now know about the increase in economic freedom under Clinton and the loss in economic freedom under Bush, is anybody surprised that the economy did better under Clinton than it did under […]
[…] Yes, Clinton did raise tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his reign. […]
[…] changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the […]
[…] America’s 42nd President actually did a pretty good job. Or, to be more accurate, we got good results during his tenure, particularly when looking at the burden of government spending. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] programs were constrained and the poverty rate began to fall. And during the Clinton years, welfare reform and other market-friendly policies led to another drop in the poverty […]
[…] changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the […]
[…] changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the […]
[…] changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the […]
No doubt the checkrein in the form of the Congress contributed mightily to the economic success of the Clinton era-and to his frustration. Remember the time he briefly railed against its resistance, saying something like, “It’s always no, no, no, no, no!” hitting the lectern with his finger to punctuate each repetition?
[…] 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. […]
[…] said lots of nice things about Bill Clinton, noting that economic freedom increased during his tenure, in part because the burden of federal spending declined to 18.2 percent of […]
[…] who claim that higher taxes are desirable because the economy expanded during the 1990s. But as I’ve explained, Clinton’s 1993 tax increase was anti-growth (and definitely didn’t balance the […]
[…] who claim that higher taxes are desirable because the economy expanded during the 1990s. But as I’ve explained, Clinton’s 1993 tax increase was anti-growth (and definitely didn’t balance the […]
[…] who claim that higher taxes are desirable because the economy expanded during the 1990s. But as I’ve explained, Clinton’s 1993 tax increase was anti-growth (and definitely didn’t balance the […]
[…] people who claim that higher taxes are desirable because the economy expanded during the 1990s. But as I’ve explained, Clinton’s 1993 tax increase was anti-growth (and definitely didn’t balance the […]
Of course, what you’re not taking into consideration in this article is that Clinton *wanted* to be a much worse President that Bush. If not for the Gingrich led Republican Congress we’d have Hillary-Care and a *much* greater debt under Clinton.
But this goes to show you – liberal Republicans are much more dangerous than liberal Democrats as RINO’s can get the support of both parties.
I know the “experts” have all been patting ol’ Slick Willie on the back for over a decade on how wonderful the economy did under his administration. Well, there are three types of lies – lies, damned lies and statistics. Why do I say this? Because during the Clinton era, my standard of living rose ONE time – when I went from being a college student with a part-time job to being a full-time professional. I experienced three layoffs (not performance-based terminations) in the five years after I graduated college. Each time the job search took longer and the resultant pay was lower. And I’m in the tech industry – the “poster child” of the Clinton economic boom. So you can post all the statistics and trends that you want to – the president who was best to my family, economically, was W in the White House.
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
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.
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.