Re: the Clinton years

[Gil Skillman <gskillman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Across his 238 pages Pollin is unambiguous. "It was under Clinton" he
> points out, "that the distribution of wealth in the US became more skewed
> than it had at any time in the previous forty years. Inside the US under
> Clinton the ratio of wages for the average worker to the pay of the average
> CEO rose from 113 to 1 in 1991 to 1 to 449 when he quit. In the world,
> exclusive of China, between 1980 and 1988 and considering the difference
> between the richest and poorest 10 per cent of humanity, inequality grew by
> 19 per cent; by 77 per cent, if you take the richest and poorest 1 per cent.

I suspect this assessment is myopic at best, and largely beside the point
when it comes to comparing the Clinton and Bush II regimes.  In the US, the
trend toward greater wealth and income inequality began in the 1970s and
continued full-steam through the Reagan and Bush I years, so Clinton
inherited a tendency that was already built into the economy.  A
significant portion of the increase in wealth inequality under Clinton was
due to the stock market bubble, reflective in part of a robust economy that
kept unemployment low, and since burst.  And I'm not sure what Pollin
expected Clinton, or any one President for that matter, to do about the
widening chasm between the richest and poorest 1% or 10% of
humanity--insist that the UN adopt a progressive global income tax?  Force
the Gingrich Congress to increase US foreign aid to poor countries a
thousand fold? Also, what could Clinton  have done to reverse the rising
(pre-tax) ratio of CEO to average worker pay, and how much of a difference
could it have made? Domestically, Clinton did manage to get through a tax
increase on the wealthy and a tax decrease for the middle class.  On the
other hand, to his eternal discredit, he went along with eliminating
"welfare as we know it" without extracting from the Republicans, who were
desperate to gut the welfare system, significant concessions for workers,
like increased support for education, training, child support, etc., in
return.

Clinton, in other words, was a disappointment, and certainly not a
leftist.  Duh.  But Bush II is an unmitigated, across-the-board disaster,
and I think that those who insist there is no real difference between
Clinton and Bush II are missing a key point.  You think wealth inequality
increased under Clinton?  Clinton didn't call for eliminating the
inheritance tax and dividends tax or for dramatic decreases in income tax
rates on the wealthy.  Bush did, and got them with a sunset clause only as
a political accounting shenanigan, and is now calling to make these tax
decreases permanent.  These regressive changes will surely lock in and
further expand existing wealth inequalities.  Also, the resulting massive
structural deficit in the Federal budget will eventually render Medicare
and Social Security infeasible; these programs would not have been
seriously threatened under Clinton's budget management.

And that is, of course only the beginning.  Clinton favored signing the
Kyoto protocol on global warming.  Bush refused to sign it after saying
that he would, and his administration has since censored reports on the
issue by its own agencies in order to avoid dealing with it.  The Clinton
EPA actively pursued litigation against corporate polluters.  The Bush EPA
abandons much of this effort, raises nonenforcement to standard practice,
leading several career EPA administrators to resign in protest, and
introduces rule changes to let polluters off the hook re installing new
pollution control equipment.  Clinton didn't do much to reduce global
income inequality?  Bush shuts off medical and other aid for the poorest
women in the world on the pretext of opposing abortion.  Speaking of
abortion, Bush has actively abetted the right's efforts to restrict
abortion rights, while Clinton supported and defended these rights.

And I haven't even mentioned the unfolding nightmares in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Ashcroft's various incursions against personal freedoms, the
Bush administration's opposition to affirmative action....the list goes
on.   In sum, whatever Clinton's (considerable) failings, life is or will
be worse for most people in and out of the US as a result of Dubya's policies.

Gil