Flashback: 1993
With Republicans bragging about their unity in opposing efforts at economic recovery, I thought it would be worth taking a look back at the GOP’s lockstep opposition to Bill Clinton’s economic efforts back in 1993. Crack ThinkProgress intern Matthew Finkelstein found the following:
– Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), chairman of the Republican Conference, said that by “keeping our boys together” Republicans had shown “we can and will influence legislation this year.” [WaPo, 4/11/93]
– Senator Connie Mack (R-FL): “President Clinton’s economic program is not what he campaigned on and it’s not what the American people voted for. . . . He said his policies would grow the economy, but all he is doing is growing government.” [News conference, 4/29/93]
– Senator Hang Brown (R-CO): “The reality is the economy is sick, not because you don’t have enough government spending, but because you’ve got too much.” [CNN, 3/13/93]
Needless to say, the Clinton years in fact resulted in economic growth that was stronger than the Reagan years and much stronger than the miserable Bush years.
40 Responses to “Flashback: 1993”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Needless to say, the Clinton years in fact resulted in economic growth that was stronger than the Reagan years and much stronger than the miserable Bush years.
And, sadly, probably much stronger than the Obama years…
February 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I take comfort in the Clinton example. Republicans blocked the Clinton stimulus and the economy did fine anyway. If Republicans block the present stimulus, it’s not the end of the world. Obama has many ways to do right by the economy that are not subject to Republican veto, such as updating and enforcing regulations.
Of course, times were different then. In 1992 the recovery from the Reagan/Bush I recession had already begun. The situation now is much worse than the situation then, when Fed policy was stimulus enough.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
did you notice that Obama signed an executive order today specifically aimed at reducing the number of jobs the stimuls plan would create?
He did that!? Really? Wow, Obama must be a real America-hating incompetent anti job guy then. Thanks for blowing the whistle on him, Al.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Forget the Clinton years. I want to hear more Republicans explain why the economy didn’t collapse after Reagan’s 1982 tax hike.
I get the sense that people like Mike Pence really believe that Reagan never raised taxes, and that’s why he was so awesome.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Al, Obama also signed an executive order today specifically aimed at killing as many puppies as possible.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Bloomberg: The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world.
So, why don’t we do that, and just have a big party or something?
CBO: the current recession… will last until the second half of 2009… [there will be a] “slow recovery in 2010″ (that assumes no stimulus, only TARP and FreddieFannie)
Those and more linked from here.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Hang Brown?
February 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Lets don’t be overly proud of Clinton. After all he did impose a strong dollar policy that cost us many manufacturing jobs and his boys Rubin and Summers gutted financial regulation.
You could also make a good case that the good economy was a matter of luck (the dot.com boom) and had nothing to do with Clinton’s policies.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
If I remember correctly, the Republicans did successfully filibuster Clinton’s 1993 stimulus package. However, the recovery was already underway so the parallels break down.
What is most striking, in retrospect, was the sheer weight of Republican demagoguery toward the 1993 budget, which scraped by with no GOP votes. We were loudly informed that the modest tax increase it entailed would destroy our economy. And, in fact, the Republicans seized control of the House for 12 years by successfully targeting Democrats who voted for the tax increase.
So, really, the utter wrongness of the GOP position was completely irrelevant to its political success. It isn’t surprising that they’re trying to pull off the same shell game this time around.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“But for some reason, Obama is specifically attempting to create as few jobs as possible. Wierd.”
You are, of course, talking about the part that says jobs should go to unions.
Since Republican senators are in large part from states with anti-union laws, perhaps Obama’s just making sure the people that all vote against his stimulus don’t get their states rewarded with jobs. Perhaps then their constituents might get a bit upset at the idiots they have in Congress.
If so, I fully support this line of action.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“Needless to say, the Clinton years in fact resulted in economic growth that was stronger than the Reagan years and much stronger than the miserable Bush years.”
Yup, and Clinton ran big surpluses, even though the Clinton stimulus was small beer and actually included tax increases. How would Krugman or Matt would explain the success of Clinton’s “neoHooverite” policies? Maybe focusing on long term fiscal sanity is a better idea than going bonkers with debt financed Keynesian “stimulus” that is nothing but relabeled Reagan supply side bullshit.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
What happened immediately before that?
Which really, really hurt the Republicans in the next several elections.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
What are you saying? That a much, much smaller recession did not require a smaller stimulus? Or that raising taxes on the wealthiest is worlds away from cutting taxes on the working class? I don’t quite follow you.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Yeah. You know what? Come back when Obama has been president for 8 years and created fewer jobs than any president since Hoover.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I like the guy who comes here all the time to scream “Obama and the Dem’s are trying to give $100 TRILLION to MEXICANS! Read my blog.” He’s funny.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
That a much, much smaller recession did not require a smaller stimulus?
A much, much smaller recession that was already ending, at that. There really is no comparison here.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
IT is rather easy to attribute all the good to Clinton without acknowledging the difficult and courageous groundwork Reagan laid. Without Reagan cutting down on the bloated and inefficient economy that was America at the end of 70’s, there would not have been the prosperity of the last 25 years.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Chronic town was their first… Oh, wait.
Sorry.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Actually, a much smaller recession that was already over for two years.
One year. Following, wouldnchaknowit, 41’s tax increase.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Without Reagan cutting down on the bloated and inefficient economy that was America at the end of 70’s, there would not have been the prosperity of the last 25 years.
Yeah, I greatly admired how he managed to accomplish unemployment over 10% and 25% interest on mortgages, both at the same time! Quite an acheivement–nobody else in history has managed to do that.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
It was deliberate, you liberal twat. Volcker had to slam on the interest rates because the stagflation and the constant expectation of ever-higher future inflation meant the U.S. was at risk of hyperinflation. The short, man-made recession cleaned out the inflationary expectation out of the system, and restored soundness and dependability of fiat money, without which the American economy was doomed to collapse.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I like how you smeared a deliberate and desperate act of courage and foresight as some sort of a policy cock-up.
Good try, fool
February 9th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Wait, did Reagan clean up the economy of the late 70s, or was it Carter appointee Paul Volcker?
February 10th, 2009 at 6:05 am
Weiner,
It was Volcker’s plan but the Reagan Administration approved it knowing full well it would be a very painful correction. Reagan also reappointed Volcker to Fed when his term was up. Reagan and his advisors did a lot of reckless, short-sighted things in that time, but I give credit where its due and this decision took a lot of political courage at the time. Contrast it with Nixon’s cynical manipulation of the economy in advance of the 1972 election which got him an election year boom but inflicted a lot of the damage that (along with oil shocks) resulted in high inflation and eventually stagflation.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:07 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:52 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:16 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra