Debunk the "Booming Clinton Economy" Myth

Last night, I hosted a "McCain Nation" event - a house party, of sorts, for conservatives.  Living in the state with more Obama supporters per person than any other (Vermont), I appreciate any occasion to meet and greet people who don't want feel warm and fuzzy about impeaching President Bush.

During the evening, we participated in a conference call, with over 15,000 McCain activists, hosted by Cindy McCain, Charlie Black (McCain's Chief Campaign Adviser), and "special guest" Rudy Giuliani.   Cindy McCain urged women to support John McCain and said a few words about how inspired she was by women in Rwanda on a recent trip there. 

Then Charlie Black spoke about campaign strategy.  They allowed a few questions, so I called in.  Incredibly, I was the fourth caller and said this:

Thank you, Cindy McCain, for your comments about the women of Rwanda.  After all they've been through, they certainly deserve all the support we can give them (see Justice 4 Rwanda). 

At their upcoming convention, Democrats will make lots of speeches pointing to the "booming Clinton economy of the 1990s" as proof that Democrats can be trusted with the economy.

The problem is the booming 1990s economy began March 1991, 22 months before Clinton took office. 

Like Obama, Clinton promised "Change" during his 1992 campaign for President.  However, later, after the country saw what kind of change Clinton had in mind, voters overwhelmingly rejected Clinton's policies by electing, for the 1st time in 40 years, a Republican majority in Congress that kept taxes and spending down and forced Clinton to balance the federal budget.

So the credit for the "booming 1990s economy" really belongs to Bush 41 and the '94 Republicans. 

So, my question is this:  Will the McCain Campaign debunk the myth of the "booming Clinton economy" so Obama and the Democrats can't take credit for it anymore?

Charlie Black agreed with my analysis.  I was thrilled!  Perhaps he was just flattering a supporter, in front of 15,000 other supporters, but it was thrilling to offer a senior McCain advisor, directly, my advice for taking away the economy, as an issue, from the Democrats in the General Election.  (I wonder if Mitt Romney was listening - our choice for McCain's VP!)

Anyway, Mr. Black went on to say that the '94 Republicans quickly entered into a balanced budget agreement, with the then-weakened Clinton, to fulfill their promises in the Contract with America, and that that agreement laid the groundwork for historic budget surpluses in the late 1990s.  He also said that he had recently heard Obama's surrogates on TV talking about how great the Clinton years were for the economy and the country.   

Clinton didn't create 22 million jobs - the booming economy that he inherited from Bush 41 and Reagan did.

I hope and pray that I've planted a seed that will encourage McCain campaign strategists to come up with an ad, or a major speech, that will debunk the booming-Clinton-economy myth and put the 1990s in proper perspective.  Many feel a President doesn't have much influence anyway on a $13 trillion dollar economy.  I'm sure Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, Cisco and other great American companies feel they had a bigger influence on 1990s economy. 

Nevertheless, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and hundreds of other Democrat leaders, pundits and supporters in the media often boast how "magnificent Clinton was on the economy", how "Clinton created 22 million new jobs", that the economy is a glorious part of his legacy and that evil Bush came along and ruined all the good work the Democrats had done in the '90s.

These are all lies that need to be confronted & corrected. 

So, to the extent that any political leader can take credit for increasing the U.S. GDP and the resulting job growth, it is the pro-growth policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that kept the 1990-91 recession shallow & short - in effect extending the booming Reagan economy into the 1990s.  Credit the 1994 Republicans for forcing Clinton to keep taxes and spending low and balancing the federal budget - all things that tend to help an economy.  One must also give some credit to Ross Perot for making federal budget deficits a big focus of the 1992 and 1994 campaigns.  Whatever you think of Ross Perot, he made it "sexy" again to demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.   

In any event, the credit does not belong to the Clintons.

Democrats, if they're to be honest, must use the Carter economy for guidance on what an Obama economy might look like.   Like Carter, Obama will, if elected, have both houses of Congress led by Democrats.  Like Carter, Obama's energy plan is to make our own oil companies the enemy, to seize their "excess" windfall profits, to implement new taxes on oil & gas (aren't they expensive enough already?) - everything except what's needed most:  lifting the ban on offshore (OCS) and ANWR drilling effective immediately.

Like Carter, Obama's economy will be a disaster.

Hey Obama - Lift the Ban!

I just read that Obama may be OK with drilling after all, "under certain conditions".  I'll believe that after he actually votes for it.  Until then, it's just the latest example of Barack trying to appeal to the largest possible audience.

There's no there there, is there?.

The story is at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/01/obama-may-back-off-opposition-to-offshore-drilling.  Here's a quote from that story to highlight the irony of Obama's latest "adjustment" to a policy position:

His staunch opposition to offshore drilling has not polled well but he has stood by the issue and has used it as a symbol to highlight that he does not base every decision on what is politically popular.

I submitted this comment in response to the article:

On Friday, the Obama-led Democratic Party went on vacation without passing a comprehensive energy bill that includes lifting the ban on offshore drilling.

For months, Obama has mocked efforts to lift the ban as a “scheme by oil companies”. Now that his lead over McCain has evaporated to dead even and polls show over 60% of Americans want offshore drilling, Barack indicates he would be OK with it.

Better late than never, I guess, but why won’t Obama ask Pelosi and Reid to keep Congress in session until it gets done? Isn’t he their leader? Doesn’t he care about families hurting from the high price of gas and everything else??

Sacrificing all that America offers the world, holding fast to extreme environmentalism when American families are suffering, seems to me a huge mistake.

Comment by Look2theWest - August 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM .

So, let's hear it Obama.  If your Democrat party really wants to lift the ban on offshore drilling, have them get their butts back to D.C.!  If you really want to help American families, that are struggling this summer and worried about this winter, then stop flying around on your air-conditioned private jet, get your Democratic friends to allow a vote on lifting the ban and ...vote for it!

It's urgent and it's important. 

You can read more of my thoughts on a comprehensive energy plan @ http://look2thewest.blogspot.com/2008/08/quick-read-energy-plan.html.

A Quick-Read Energy Plan

Originally posted on June 27, 2008.  This is my sixth revision.

Incredulously, Congress adjourned Friday for a five week recess without passing an energy bill that addresses the current crisis.  I urge the President to call them back into an emergency session to pass a comprehensive plan.

John McCain's plan is called the Lexington Project.  My plan's a little different, but the basic idea is the same:  Aggressive domestic oil & natural gas drilling followed by intense efforts to increase nuclear, wind, solar & hydrogen power.

Because America does great things with the energy it uses, it's important to U.S. and the world to reduce energy costs as much as possible as fast as possible. 

My plan will do that and jump-start alternative sources, replace foreign oil sources with domestic and improve energy efficiency:

1. Sell 1% of the SPR, per month, until oil is < $100 barrel.
2. Spend the SPR money, about $1 billion / month, to jump-start alternatives like Picken's wind project, solar and hydro. 
3. Make a 9pm EST Primetime announcement that the U.S. will begin drilling in the OCS and ANWR effective immediately.  Announce that it will be a national priority to help oil companies get rigs out to those sites as fast as possible and that, if necessary, the military will assist, shipping lanes will be interrupted, etc., in other words, rally the nation!  It's important & urgent to save our economy...Let's act like it!
4. Offer $100 billion for the first person or company to invent an inexpensive  way to retrofit existing cars to get > 100 mpg.  It's great if auto makers offer new cars that get high mpg but for every new car sold there are thousands already on the road. 
5. Build the largest nuke plant in the world in the Nevada desert, right next to the Yucca Mountain Repository, and plug into the national grid.  Why risk transporting the nuke waste any farther than necessary?
6. Identify the 10 worst users of energy, efficiency-wise, make them famous and use carrots and sticks to make sure the list is completely different next year.
7. Abandon all efforts at biofuels - that was a really stupid idea.  Not only is producing food energy-intensive but we need all the food we produce to feed people, not cars.  USE FOOD FOR PEOPLE.
8. Remove regulatory burdens preventing new oil & gas refineries from being built and existing ones from being expanded. 

So why do we need an energy plan?  Is there a crisis?  Some prominent Democratic leaders, including Barack Obama, would like you to believe high energy prices are punishment for 5% of the world's population using 25% of the world's oil or bitter medicine necessary to force us to finally do the right thing:  conserve. 

This explains their lack of action. 

Others, including myself, have a different take on things:

America does great things with the energy it consumes!

The U.S. economy produces over $13 trillion of goods and services  - more than Japan, Germany, China & the U.K. combined!  We create most of the world's great inventions.  We produce most of the world's food - food is energy-intensive.  We use lots of energy to help maintain a fantastic military that helps keep the world safe.  Our incredible economy creates lots of wealth, a big chunk of which is donated to help feed and clothe the rest of the world. 

We also produce most of the world's medicines, music, movies and manufactured goods.  Does that surprise you?  You may have been misled into thinking the U.S. has lost all it's manufacturing to China.  Actually, in real dollars, American manufacturers produced $1.53 trillion worth of goods in 2005—up from $900 billion in 1992.  Let me repeat, we manufacture 70% more goods than we did in 1992 in real dollars - that takes energy, lots of it. 

So, why shouldn't we use the most energy?   We create the most goods and services (and inventions, music, film, food, medicines, aircraft, etc..)  In addition, we're extremely efficient using our energy.  By 1999, we were able to produce the same goods and services we did in 1972, using 74% less energy.  In other words, Mr. Obama, we already conserve, have been for years, we just call it being "efficient", and we do it to save our companies and families money. 

We should celebrate our economy and what we produce, not feel guilty about much energy we use to produce it!

This plan has huge benefits for the United States:

1. Selling SPR oil and opening up the OCS and ANWR sends a huge message to world oil markets that the U.S. is finally serious about using all it's available resources to meet it's energy needs.  Although the OCS/ANWR oil will not be delivered immediately, speculators trade on trends and the trend for oil prices will finally start heading down. 
2. Exactly how much will prices drop?  Oddly enough, a Democrat in Congress may have answered that question.  Peter Welch (D-VT),  sponsored H.R. 6022 to stop adding oil to the SPR.  He says that, not purchasing 70,000 barrels per day, "may reduce gas prices 5 to 24 cents per gallon".  Every Senate Democrat voted for it, including Obama and Hillary, and Bush signed it.  So, Democrats have agreed, on record, how much the price of gas will drop (21 cents) when the supply of oil increases by 100,000 barrels.  Remarkable!
3. Using Congressmen Welch's math, just selling SPR oil should save 49 cents / gal.  Do you know anyone that wants to save 49 cents a gallon?  EVERYONE!  As far as OCS/ANWR, we looked at the 2006 OCS Assessment and the 1987 ANWR report, and they'll yield 2 to 4 million barrels per day.  Using Rep. Welch's math, oil from OCS/ANWR may push the price of gas to below $1 per gallon.   It may not be that much, but the more U.S. oil we produce, the lower the worldwide price, the more the world loves U.S. - it's economic science.   
4. This should drop not just the price of oil, but nearly all U.S. consumer prices.  A solid plan until lower price kick in should help calm consumer fears about the future of the U.S. economy.  Right now, the only thing standing in the way of providing the American people cheap energy again is the Democratic leadership in Congress, you know, the ones with a 9% approval rating, an approval rating so low the term "historic" is getting old.  The usual suspects refusing to drill include Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and, of course, their Presidential nominee, Barack Obama.  Increasingly, voters are getting more and more angry.  
5. The SPR has about 700 million barrels of oil so 1% equals 7 million bbls.  At $142 per bbl, selling 1% per month of the SPR  will net about $1 billion dollars per month for investment in alternative energy .  Oil, gas, coal, natural gas and nuclear will meet our near term needs (next 30 years) while we transition to alternative energy (wind, solar, hydro).
6. Aggressive domestic drilling replaces foreign oil with domestic and that prevents hundreds of billions of US dollars from going to countries hostile to our interests, lowers our trade deficit, improves our economy and creates hundreds of thousands of US jobs
7. The more oil produced in the U.S. the more control we have over how it is produced.  For example, U.S. deep sea drilling standards minimize damage to the environment if there's an accident.  Right now, we have no control over how a well drilled off the coast of Nigeria is regulated.
8. Abandoning bio fuels will reduce pressure on food prices and help get food to those who need it most - the hungry.
9. This plan generates billions of dollars for alternative energy research without any money from the federal budget - this helps keep our deficit down, interest rates down and the dollar up - all good for U.S. consumers.
10. One nice side benefit of increased domestic production is that all our allies, Europe, Japan, Australia, South America, Afghanistan, will also benefit from lower worldwide oil prices after we increase US output.  They will be grateful that we have finally taken pressure off not just gas price but prices overall and avoided a worldwide recession, if not depression.

Our leaders, and our voters, have a choice.  Empower America (pun intended) with my plan or continue to gamble that alternative energy, OPEC lawsuits, humiliating US oil companies executives (who control less than 6% of the world's oil reserves) and even more conservation will pay off soon.  Barack and the Dems have no plan to address our growing near-term energy needs and, given the pain that $5 gas will cause us, that's remarkable. Sacrificing all that America offers the world, holding fast to extreme environmentalism when American families are suffering, seems to me to be a mistake of monumental proportions. 

My Questions for Hillary

I recently watched a Major Garrett interview of Senator Clinton @

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/14/hillary-clinton-its-not-over-till-its-over/#comment-2844

It was a rigorous discussion of inside-the-beltway issues like whether Michigan and Florida should be seated and isn't the recent tide of super delegates to come out for Obama a sign Obama's the presumptive nominee?  As interesting as those topics are for political junkies, like myself, I can't help but wonder why aren't more questions asked that would really help voters make up their minds?

For example:

1. To really reduce the price of gas for those WV nurses (who can't see certain patients because of gas prices), what about drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, with strict environment-protecting controls, and releasing some of the SPR until those new wells come online?  This would really lower the price of gas for average Americans, replace foreign oil sources with domestic and improve our trade deficit.  The Dems have really limited domestic drilling - which has kept domestic supply down.  If Democrats don't go along with it now, why shouldn't those nurses, and everyone else, blame the Democrats for high gas prices?
2. Isn't it true, Senator Clinton, that the booming 90s economy, you keep taking credit for, actually began in March, 1991 - a full 21 months before your husband took office?  Isn't it also true that the 1994 Republican's fiscal discipline and the Bush 41 recovery have more to do with the late 1990s surpluses than anything your husband did?  If so, why should Americans trust you with our economy?  In fact, given the Dem majorities, isn't it more likely a Hillary economy would be more like Carter's economy than the one your husband inherited?
3. Lastly, and far more important, are questions about Rwanda - most media has been afraid to ask the Clintons about Rwanda – until now.  After the Holocaust, we promised “never again” at the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.  In 1994, over 50,000 blacks per week were butchered to death during the Rwanda Genocide.  To avoid our UN obligation, President Clinton tried to convince the world it wasn’t technically “genocide”.   Incredibly, the world believed President Clinton and, for 14 long weeks, the slaughter continued until over 800,000 blacks died.  Senator Clinton - As someone who has fought for women and children for 35 years, why didn’t you speak out publicly against your husband when you saw the news footage of the Kagera River, red with the blood of victims and clogged with the bloated & hacked body parts of women and children?  You call yourself a feminist and yet you remained silent while hundreds of thousands of black women, young and old, were raped and mutilated.  Why did you remain silent?
4. Do you believe your husband’s apologies are enough given that over 800,000 blacks lost their lives on his watch?  Recent reports indicate your husband and V.P. Gore may have been aware as early as week three that a horrific genocide was happening, but did not acknowledge it publicly. 
5. By week three, the Hutus had slaughtered over 100,000 Tutsis.  When did you begin to think it was genocide?  If early on, why not speak out publicly to save lives?  If not until later, why should America trust you to be President if you failed to see such a significant human disaster was unfolding and that urgent action was needed? 

I know these questions are a little rough but the subject matter is rough.  I truly believe journalists have a solemn obligation to hold leaders accountable, even if questions are difficult.