« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Did the White House make Bill Clinton recant opposition to job-killing tax hikes?

As the American Action Forum (AAF) notes, pretty much. Quick background: it more or less got overlooked, but former President Clinton argued yesterday (June 5th) that it would be advisable for the ‘Bush tax cuts’ (which is Dizzy-City speak for ‘current tax baseline’) to be ‘temporarily’ (read: ‘permanently’) instituted, even if it would benefit the ‘wealthiest Americans’ (translation: it’s probably not a good idea to kick American small businesses in the kidneys again). That this is contrary to current administration policy is apparently not serving as a warning sign to the White House that maybe they should be changing said policy, despite the fact that Democrats are apparently starting to line up in order to get their new-found distance from the Obama administration. Instead, the administration apparently twisted some arms, and hey presto! – Bill Clinton is retracting:

…a spokesman for Mr. Clinton issued a statement walking back the comments. It said that Mr. Clinton “doesn’t believe the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended again.”

Two things about this: first, never trust a Democratic politician to stay sensible on fiscal policy. Second… never trust a Democratic politician to stay sensible on fiscal policy*.

I’ll let the AAF explain the basic problem, here:

Just a few weeks ago the CBO warned that if the fiscal cliff that looms at the end of 2012 goes unaddressed, the United States faces another recession in 2013 (although if you ask Mr. Clinton, he, and many Americans, already think the United States is still in a recession). But because of the seriousness of the report released yesterday, dodging the fiscal cliff should not be allowed to add to the debt. CBO’s most recent report reiterates the point that they have been making for years: serious, substantive solutions dealing with the underlying drivers of our debt (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are absolutely essential to ensuring the economic health and future of the country.

Perhaps what is most starting about yesterday’s report is that it shows that the future is now here. By 2041, interest payments on the debt will be the single largest government “program.” In 2035 the economy will be over one-fifth smaller than the CBO’s economic benchmark and the debt will be 250 percent of the economy. By 2042, debt held by the public will be 247 percent of GDP.

To which I’ll add… do not expect President Obama to care about this, for one very brutal reason: in 2042 Barack Obama will be eighty-one years old. Which means that he will either be alive and rich enough to not really have to care about the country’s general fiscal situation, or dead of old age and thus essentially indifferent to it. I will probably be alive, and not nearly as rich, and a good deal more worried about my own kids, who will likewise probably be not nearly as rich. Which is a roundabout way of noting that it’d be great if the current President had more skin in this particular game. Or, in fact, had any skin in it at all.

And let’s not get into Bill Clinton’s need to be concerned about the consequences of his policy positions. The man was born in ’46, after all.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: AAF noted, by the way, that the President still likes the Buffett rule. Entertainingly, Warren Buffett today made it clear that he wasn’t one of those card-carrying Democrats or anything, golly gee. It’s the little things that set off the big, honking warning bells, I find.

*To paraphrase the classics: yes, that’s only one thing … but it’s such an important thing that I thought that I should mention it twice.

COMMENTS

  • califgal

    but I’m sick of hearing from Warren Buffett.

    There are a lot of people who couldn’t bring themselves to choose McCain over a symbolic choice that, in their eyes, proved American exceptionalism (“Look at us, World; we’re the country that doesn’t hold anyone back, and to prove it, look at whom we elected, a black man…better yet, a bi-racial man).

    I’ve always suspected Mr. Buffett of touting Mr. Obama for this reason and having a mighty hard time of admitting his mistake.

    A man’s character and his resume are still what should guide a voter, not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy that one’s skin color and ability to read a speech gives one superpowers.

  • thx1138v2

    Just in case the Clintons decide to get in the race again I wanted this to be available to those online to remember. You will find a lot of the players in the Clinton/Chinese camapign funds/long range missile guidance scandal holding down positions in this current administrations. Leon Paneeta was Chief of Staff, Gary Locke the current US Ambassador to China, and many, many more.

    I realise that a lot of people think 1998 is ancient history but here’s a taste of that Clinton administration.

    http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/june98/psrjune98.html

  • Flagstaff

    We don’t even know how much was given away by Clinton in that episode.

  • Flagstaff

    Forget everything you’ve heard on TV. None of it explains his behavior if you believe he wants Obama to win (and if you believe he wants Hill to have a shot at the WH, he wants Obie to win). What would explain it is this:

    The “gotta raise taxes on the rich Republicans” and “Romney is a vulture capitalist and so are all his cohort” and “Romney didn’t create any jobs at Bain” positions were attempts to create a campaign theme that could be used to bring down Romney by exclusion. Bill Clinton saw quickly that the ideas weren’t working, and he also saw that Obie was ignoring his warnings about that, warnings that they could be and were being quickly and easily turned against the Obama presidency.

    Clinton also recognized the stubborn streak in Obama, and the fact that “plays well with others” was never a strong suit for Barack and still isn’t. BO didn’t intend to listen. Bill’s solution was to go public with a pre-emptive strike on Obama’s ill-conceived ideas, ruining them quickly as an Obama campaign theme, but also removing them as pivot point from which the Republican’s could turn them against Obama, which they were in the process of doing. “Nip it in the bud, Andy.”

    IOW, Bill said, “If you won’t listen to me willingly, I’ll make you listen to me and make you stop doing dumb things before they can really hurt us, by throwing a monkey wrench into the works. It’s for our own good. I know it whether you do or not.” And it has the added bonus for Bill that even if Obama loses, a Clinton has again made the inclusive “presidential” statement, and it can be used in Hillary’s campaign in 2016.

  • Flagstaff

    He may have “recanted,” but the ideas are dead as campaign themes.

  • Dave_A

    Have the benefit of continuing to bolster the notion that the ‘Clinton brand’ is a big-tent, ‘moderate’ one… Something that can be used in 2016 regardless of what happens to Zero….

    Bill knows that the folks b’ing him out on leftie blogs will vote Democrat no matter what he says…

    He is promoting the ‘brand’ to the middle, and forcing Obama to move in that direction, by killing the ‘radical’ campaign plan….

  • The_Gadfly

    Clinton was specifically temporary as opposed to permanent on extending the tax cuts before he hostage walked it back. He was clearly talking about at most a 1 year extension so the next congress can deal with it. This is actually critically important to business planning. A 1 year extension only means I don’t have to consider exit strategies this year. It doesn’t change thinking about whether or not I higher a new employee. Because the tax increase is still out there the following year when I may again have to consider exit strategies. From a purely partisan standpoint I’m all in favor of having these things expire right before each Presidential election to remind people Democrats always want to raise taxes. From a we need to build our economy by encouraging job growth perspective the cuts need to be made permanent. In the current economic environment, I’m willing to set aside my partisan perspective.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Knowing the petty and vindictive nature of the Clintons, the most likely explanation is that he hates Obama and likes to stick a knife in him every chance he gets.

  • renl57

    “Bill Clinton?s off-message musings in recent days on Mitt Romney, taxes and the state of the economy prompted a series of urgent and agitated calls between senior aides to both Clinton and President Barack Obama….

    “Clinton?s team was as aghast as Obama?s at how the boss had wandered blithely into remarks that left even sympathetic listeners wondering what exactly he was getting at. He also gave gleeful Republicans an opening to skewer Obama with a popular Democrat?s own words.

    “Clinton, in a ritual that would be familiar to anyone who has worked for him during the past 20 years, protested that his words were being wrested from context and blamed a manipulative news media for stirring up trouble to satisfy its own lust for chaos and conflict.

    “But his own team, and eventually Clinton himself, agreed there was no choice but to issue embarrassing what-the-former-president-meant-to-say clarifications, which were crafted in close consultation with senior Obama aides at the White House and campaign headquarters in Chicago, according to people involved in the negotiations.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77147.html

    Clinton is just the latest Democrat to blurt out the truth about the Obama policies and campaign–only to be promptly muzzled by an increasingly desperate Obama campaign. (Cory Booker, Ed Rendell, Deval Patrick, etc.)

    But the effect of what Obama is doing is to muzzle moderate Democrats who are more popular with moderate and Independent voters than he is. It’s just going to add to the perception that Obama is a candidate only of the hard Left.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I have thought for a while, the Clintons see an Obama loss as the best for Hilary in 2016. Sure, Romney will be an incumbent but in 2016 the opponent would be Barack Obama’s failure. They’d rather take their chances with Mitt Romney, incumbent than Barack Obama’s ghost. In addition, don’t think for a minute Bubba has forgotten Plouffe and Axelrod putting “Bill Clinton is a racist” on the street. The Obama administration can’t shut him up because they need him to raise money so Clinton will spend the next 6 months putting the needles to Obama. Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.

  • azred

    Cobble together the growing list of figures that have been silenced by the Obama team, with subtext describing the offense. In the cases of a prompt walking back, show the ‘revised’ version.

    Add the IG’s that were fired for doing their job.

    Add the Obama campaign’s building of an enemy list.

    You would easily get the picture of a thin skinned narcissist, more about his own appearance and self-adulation than anything or anybody else.

  • Flagstaff

    The thing is, nobody knows Clinton’s mind, either. O’Reilly claims that Bill C. simply says what he means to say, without filtering it. Dick Morris says Bill considers the political import of everything, every day, and doesn’t say anything without thinking about what its result will be.

    If it is the latter, my comment was an attempt to make some sense of it beyond an attempt to get revenge on Obama. If revenge were the goal, why walk it back?

  • Flagstaff

    “I have thought for a while, the Clintons see an Obama loss as the best for Hilary in 2016. ” That is the opposite of my basic assumption, “if you believe he wants Obama to win (and if you believe he wants Hill to have a shot at the WH, he wants Obie to win).”

    Again, if he wants Obie to lose, why walk any of it back? The Dimocrat Party is ripe for an overthrow of King Barack, as there are many of them who would love to be able to distance themselves from what they know are ridiculous policies and a foolish leader. Bill could do it with just a few well-chosen words. And the words would be oh, so reasonable.

    If Bill wants O. to lose, only the fear of failure could be holding him back. Which could also explain the passive-aggressive behavior. Perhaps these off-the-reservation statements are a sort of feeler, a finger in the wind, a test of possible support.

    We shall see.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    like Ed Rendell and Paul Begala have taken the opportunity to pop “the One” in the privates today. With Rendell basically saying that Hilary was right choice in 2008 and Begala basically saying that Obama stabbed Barrett in the back.

  • checkmate2012

    public declarations of so-called surrogates. They believe O has dragged the Party so far to the left they will have a lot of damage control in all levels of gov’t (WI, San Diego, San Jose as proof even in very blue states.)

    But I disagree that Bill Clinton wants O to win this go ’round for Hill in 2016. If O wins now, once again the public will want a change after 8 years, in this case chomping at the bit for a change like never before, and Hill will have no chance in 2016. The Dems will be tarnished if not vanished for many years to come, so he’s trying to protect the brand of a centrist Dem party (not that it exists anymore but he can try with the folks loved me nonsense that Dems used to buy).

    On the contrary, I think he wants Romney to win now so Hill WILL have a chance in 2016. It’s her last chance.

  • Flagstaff

    Pretty persuasive. It just requires that we believe that Bill believes that Obama will make things even worse if he wins. Not a wild assumption at all, but not a given, either. If Bill were that reasonable and logical, there’s a good chance he’d be a Republican.

  • Flagstaff

    I think your analysis makes a lot of sense, and it’s based on a better assumption than mine was. It seems very likely that Bill recognizes what a disaster four more years of Obama will be. You win that one.

    At the same time, his comments did tend to give the Dem Party some cover it needs, and it still leaves the question open as to why he walked any of it back.

  • funwithknives

    on Fox/Bair/6pm and it had to have been one of the weirdest, most blatent examples of feigned ignorance I can remember.
    Eric Holder now has a new role model.

    He actually claimed he spoke before knowing the tax cuts expiration dates. That he assumed they expired Before The Election.
    How as that even remotely possible, even for a Progressive?
    That Bill does not have any briefers, flacks or script reviewers right by his side?
    The previous extention’s expiration dates, were year-to-year, shouted from the rooftops and *TaxMaggedon* is everywhere you look.

    So which is it;
    1) Bill is a brainless clod, par-excellance ?
    2)Machiavelli has been reborn, and lives in Arkansas?
    3) He’s a wall, not a door ,nor a window.

    No matter, I for one want him to jest keep talkin’ that trash.

    Never thought you could have so much fun, watching something disintegrate……….

  • westcoastpatriette

    like pouring water on the wicked witch and watching her shrivel up.

    Makes me think of that scripture that says “pride comes before a fall.” We have been repulsed by the left’s arrogance and especially Obama’s for the last three years and now we are watching them fall big time. And watching Bubba help is just plain hilarious.

  • funwithknives

    ‘falling pride’ so-to speak, but they just insist on keeping up The Meme.

    …and like me swarming to a roadside market, ‘Free Stuff’ on the overhead banner is not to be ignored.

    The entire time Bill was mouthing this tripe, I wondered how many Boo-Boos and Band-Aids he had on his Royal Rear.
    Maybe he found an Intern to rub them and make them feel better…..

    A thought: Is he still paying penance for the Dress Episode?
    “Thank you Ma’am, can I have another…?”

  • chbroussard

    Watching these two camps is more fun than I’ve had ages. Reminds me of what happens when you put a young bull in the pasture with an old one. Not always a pretty sight. I’m sure there’s an ulterior motive (or motives) to what’s coming out of Bill’s mouth, but to some extent it’s partly two unbridled egos that just can’t help themselves. Whatever the reason, I’m enjoying the show immensely.

  • checkmate2012

    he could hardly contain his laughter! Another priceless day this week & I don’t believe it was an apology. Clinton wants O to lose this year so Hill can win in 2016. Oh so funny.

  • Flagstaff

    to keep the dress out of the Smithsonian.

  • checkmate2012

    on another diary. Clinton could not keep a straight face during his apology tour on CNN yesterday; he chuckled the entire time (just saw it w/Ingram for O’Reilly).

    Clinton is intentionally sabotaging O and there is no one that can convince me otherwise. Heck, he may be planting a seed for Hill in 2012, which I doubt but from what we’ve seen lately one never knows.

    O comes down with a terrible case of gray hair and is in the hospital with some terrible disease? Been known to happen when they have to exit for extaneous reasons :)

  • Flagstaff

    “word salad with vinaigrette.”

  • checkmate2012

    and doesn’t mix word. Loved his algea bit too.

  • Pingback: My Homepage