Here's what Bill Clinton promised in 1992:
Back when Mr. Clinton was campaigning for president in 1992, he made a pretty direct pitch: Raise taxes on people making more than $200,000, and use those revenues to fund tax relief for the "forgotten middle class."
In an October presidential debate, then-Gov. Clinton laid out the marginal-rate increase he wanted and some of his plans for the revenue that would be brought in. He followed with a pledge:
"Now, I'll tell you this," he said. "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs."
Not everyone believed him, but some voters did, possibly enough to give him his winning margin.
Here's what he did in 1993:
Mr. Clinton, of course, won that election. And as the inauguration approached, he began backtracking from his promise. At a Jan. 14, 1993, press conference in New Hampshire, he claimed that it was the media that had played up a middle-class tax cut, not him. A month later, he announced his actual plan before a joint session of Congress.
On page one of the New York Times, the paper described the fate of the middle-class tax cut this way: "Families earning as little as $20,000 a year -- members of the 'forgotten middle class' whose taxes he promised during his campaign to cut -- will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President's plan."
By the way, one of his tax increases, on gasoline, is regressive, hitting poor people harder than the well off.
The speed of Clinton's reversal makes it reasonable to conclude that he never intended to keep his promise of a middle-class tax cut.
Some politicians undoubtedly learned from Clinton's success. Not only did he win in 1992, but he was able to win re-election in 1996. (Though his supporters in Congress had a little trouble in 1994.) Since politicians imitate other, successful politicians, we can expect that other candidates, especially other Democratic candidates, will emulate his simple strategy.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(One oddity: If I recall correctly, one of the things that helped Clinton win re-election in 1996, in spite of his broken promise on middle-class tax cuts, is that many voters had decided, even in 1992, that Clinton did not always tell the truth. So they gave his promises less weight than they might have given to promises from a more honest politician.)
Tax series post
Posted by Jim Miller at October 09, 2008 03:31 PM | Email ThisThe only comparison that works is with Carter.
Posted by: Andy on October 9, 2008 04:00 PMMy advice: start working on 2010. The Democrats will inevitably screw-up big time, so start planning on getting back control of the Hosue and Senate.
As for me, I'm gonna vote for Ron Paul just 'cause I like him. I'll probably vote for Rossi just because a Rossi win will mightily piss-off the Seattle/King County leftist ruling elite. I personally don't care one way or the other about Rossi, other than he infuriates the Neo-socialist crowd of Seattle and KC.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 9, 2008 04:07 PMMoreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 9, 2008 04:09 PM"The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they've ever been in recent memory," said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. "We've been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There's no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain's policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama's."
How is Reagan's war on the middle class, and manufacturing going these days?
Reagan won. America lost.....
The next time a Republiconvict asks for a corporate tax cut for companies outsourcing their workforce, just cut out their tongue. They probably deserve far, far worse...
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on October 9, 2008 04:23 PMBut don't you dare question their patriotism or love for their country!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 9, 2008 04:32 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A
All the while McCain's campaign is careening from one lame talking point to another. Someone needs to let him know that no one really cares about Bill Ayers these days, especially with two wars that are going south and a global economy in collapse.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on October 9, 2008 06:34 PM"Despite championing immigration reform in 2007, John McCain is poised to lose the Hispanic vote by a landslide margin that is well below President Bush in 2004"
Posted by: Unkl Witz on October 9, 2008 06:40 PMNo one believes your lies any more except your leftist comrades who all worship Goebbel's philosophy of telling a lie enough times that it seems to be the truth. You deserve a one way ticket to North Korea. It's little surprise that support the candidate who has little regard for the truth. Comparing him to Bill Clinton is an insult to Pres. Clinton, who I wasn't crazy about. I wouldn't be surprised if you are involved with the local chapter of ACORN.
Posted by: KS on October 9, 2008 07:36 PMWe also get that OhDrama sat on his thumb along with the rest of the winged monkeys and both did and said nothing while your sort allowed Wall Street to rape the folks... we get all that. We get that you'll be in here, for a while at least; first gloating, and then spending all of your time defending his lies, much like you all do defending the lies of Queen Chrissy, the Tribal Ho.
But let's count votes in November, shall we? I mean, you never know... all that blood your sort has spilled by providing aid and comfort to our enemies just might come back to haunt you.
Posted by: Hinton on October 9, 2008 07:51 PMWhat I get is that you are one angry, bitter son of a bitch. Your posts reek with venom and and hate. You project your own psychological deficiencies onto your perceived political opponents. I honestly do feel sorry for you.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on October 9, 2008 08:16 PMPaul is the one guy in congress with integrity and an understanding of free market economics. In his 20 or so years in congress he CONSISTANTLY voted for less government and the republican leadership treats him like the plague.
Politically incorrect @2 is correct, we need to throw the republican leadership out and work to get leaders that supported Paul into leadership positions. The chance to do so in Washington is coming up soon!
Posted by: Lysander on October 9, 2008 08:43 PMObama will make Clinton look like a lightweight when it comes to destroying the economy...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 9, 2008 09:55 PM@17: Paul is the one politician that's been consistently crazy. Two words should discount him from getting anywhere near government fiscal policy: gold standard.
@18: Maybe we should imitate Bush? After eight years, he's looking to leave the office with the stock market lower than when he entered. He preached lower government spending, and managed to spend us into a hole, especially with wars that we cannot afford.
McCain would make Bush look like a lightweight when it would come to destroying the economy. Luckily, the fella won't get the chance.
Posted by: demo kid on October 9, 2008 11:43 PMI see you are no longer spouting your Slavery Party line of "Clinton balanced the budget! Clinton saved the economy!". In fact, he did neither. No balance or surplus, and he went from no recession to a recession.
And no, we shouldn't emulate Bush. But considering that 3 out of 4 CEOs of small business CEOs (not just the Wall Street fat-cats) say the Obama plan WILL destroy the US economy, and 80% prefer McCain over Obama, how about we give a real Government cutter and fiscal hawk a chance?
Obama represents trillions more in spending, trillions in direct welfare and wealth redistribution, and trillions more in taxes, all of which will crush our economy. It was tried - it's called the Bush approach to the economy. Spend a LOT, gain little.
You really don't understand, do you? In terms of the economy, Obama is a LOT closer to Bush. McCain is the alternative. Look at their approach to the growth of Government and spending.
So I guess you really do want the Bush administration to continue!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 10, 2008 08:02 AMAll facts, you need to step back and do one more fact check on your claims.
Clinton pushed for NAFTA and twisted arms to get it passed, thus sending tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs to Mexico. Clinton gave China most favored nation status opening the floodgates of American manufacturing moving to China. Clinton proudly stepped up to make America part of the global labor market.
How is it Reagan's war against the middle class and manufacturing again?
Posted by: blindman on October 10, 2008 09:33 AMHillary would have crushed Obama. She has a lot more clout when it comes to domestic economic issues. And Ron Paul would have easily cleaned up against the other Republicans. He would just have to read off all of his bills he proposed that would have prevented the meltdown from happening. His platform of sound money and healthy markets would have reached far and wide in the electorate.
Sadly, all because of the timing of the crisis, we're now going to get a european-style socialist country with ossified social strata combined with all of the race-baiting, class warfare, and social marxism (political correctness) that runs deep in the left.
Regardless of your party affiliation, if you think the Bush years were bad. The next for are going to be a very long winter for liberty and freedom-loving folks. I just hope they aren't able to rig the system so that we can never go back.
Both Obama's and McCain's plans for fixing the credit crisis are blatant socialism. Both want the government to invest in these banks by buying up all of the bad loans. THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA because it creates an immediate conflict of interest. The congress is responsible for oversight of the financial system as well as representing the tax payers. How will they vote on regulatory matters when they know it might hurt the government's investment in the very businesses that they are regulating?
This is why socialism doesn't work--it politicizes the economy. This is why over-reaching government regulation doesn't work--it politicizes the economy. This is why public entitlement systems like social security don't work--they politicize the economy. This is why a fiat currency doesn't work--it politicizes the economy.
As long as politicians have the power to move markets, they will do so to satisfy their own ends. This bubble was created by politicians who wanted to "create prosperity" and thus get re-elected. We will always have bubbles as long as the government has it's nose in everybody's business.
Posted by: blindman on October 10, 2008 09:48 AMThe feeling of disappointment that set in afterward has stopped me from ever voting for another Democrat.
If Obama does get in, I have a feeling we will be able to credit him with creating many lifetime Republicans.