The Clinton Impact on the Election

The most moving and probably surprising speech of the RNC and DNC conventions was in my humble opinion the speech given by Ann Romney.  She talked about a side of her husband that very few people see.  It allowed voters the ability to relate to Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

The speech by Sandra Flucke at the DNC was depressing and embarrassing in my opinion.  Filled with lies and distortions and a passion not truly about women's health but a passion for tyranny that would force people to pay for birth control of women does not move me.  I understand that Birth Control is about more than just being able to have sexual intercourse and almost eliminate the possibility of pregnancy.  I understand that many ladies take it to help their hormones and even recently I have heard it can help acne.  There might be some validity to its effect on cancer.  But the idea that a private business should be forced to pay for birth control if they wish not to is just not mainstream.  its Radical.  I'm not against birth control and I'm sure I pay for it since I have health insurance through the state of TN.  But I have an issue with FORCING a private institute to do so.  As a Conservative Libertarian that just goes way too far.

But the speech that might have the most impact was entirely too long but delivered beautifully.  That was the speech given by Bill Clinton.  Clinton is a terrific speaker and can explain pretty complicated issues to regular Americans who do not spend a great portion of their life studying the issues he talks about.  But I want to point out something that very few people know about.  This information has been researched and recently I read an article on Forbes magazine that uses that research that gave me the idea to blog about it.

Clinton and others who support the President and want to increase taxes on the "rich" do so out of a desire for "fairness" and to help pay off the debt.  I have mentioned many times that increased taxes on the rich will make a minimum impact on the actual debt which is a spending issue.  I have also spoken on the "fairness" issue and how the rich already pay most all the federal income taxes in this country.  But the argument that many use against raising taxes is that it can hurt the economy.  Raising taxes will slow growth.  That argument, which I make daily, is often argued against by referencing the successful economic times under the most popular living president, President Bill Clinton.  But what is interesting is that the understanding of what happened under Clinton is so often misunderstood.

No doubt the 90's were a prosperous time in America.  No doubt Clinton did some good things while President.  And I would like to have him back as compared to the current president.  But lets look at the facts:

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase raised the top two income tax rates to 36% and 39.6%, with the top rate hitting joint returns with incomes above $250,000 ($400,000 in 2012 dollars).  In addition, it removed the cap on the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax, raised the corporate tax rate to 35% from 34%, increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits, and imposed a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes." -Forbes

These taxes though were met with a 1994 election that brought a major change to congress with the Republicans gaining control under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. I'ms sure there were other circumstances that led to this but even Clinton apparently has said he felt that he increased taxes too much.  .

During the first four years of Clinton's presidency the economy grew but not at an alarming impressive rate.  people were being employed at about 2 million a year but wages were growing very slowly as well and even with inflation in check, GDP was growing at about 3%.  Not real strong considering we had just left a recession.  But these numbers are not bad and we would enjoy them now.  But here is the interesting part.

In 1995 Clinton changed his view on taxes apparently.  Welfare reform took place, We reduced tariffs and other barriers to free trade with NAFTA.  In 1997 Capital Gain taxes were lowered by 8 percent.  He also exempted more people from the, in my opinion immoral, death tax.  Government spending was slowed.  And a strong dollar policy kept inflation low, which in essence is like a tax break in that we have more money left to spend in other areas.  What were the results:

GDP increased by a full percentage point to over 4% a year between 1996 and 2000.  Unemployment fell to 4%.  Real wages increased much faster, the S&P increased by 78%, Revenues to the federal government increased.

The point here is that there was significant prosperity under the Clinton Administration.  But most of that prosperity came later in his tenure when his policies more favored that of the congress.  Those policies are far different than President Obama's.  It is impossible to compare the two eras.  Understand that a technological boom and other things that came together in the 90's would have led to economic growth almost no matter what.  That is why I do not compare the times very often.  But given that former President Bill Clinton's speech in which be bragged about what he did, although much of that was forced by congress, will likely have a large impact on a large segment of the population, I wanted to mention this to a few voters... those of you who read my blog.

Thanks,

Raby