AHC: conservatives easily accept Clinton as legitimately president in 1993?

They thought that Clintoncare would give their taxpayer dollars to aldulterers, drug users, gays, athiests, single mothers, etc. . .
I think the feeling on the part of some conservatives is that at least some of the people who are the ‘other’ or who are partially excluded, don’t really try hard enough to make it in the mainstream system.
 
I think the feeling on the part of some conservatives is that at least some of the people who are the ‘other’ or who are partially excluded, don’t really try hard enough to make it in the mainstream system.
That's exactly what I'm saying. They saw Clinton as a lazy person who would redistribute their money to other lazy people.
 
. . . who would redistribute their money to other lazy people.
And a goodly number of people expect poor people to . . . handle their insurance as competently as a bridge grandmaster, their expenditures as competently as a zen master.

And it’s all individually based.

I have a heck of a hard time getting people to see the point that there are less middle-income and above jobs than there are people seeking such jobs. And that with the serious erosion of manufacturing + unions as source of middle-class jobs, not enough different somethings together has taken its place.

An exception is when I talk about the possibility of a slow-motion crisis of automation. Then people do often listen.
 
And a goodly number of people expect poor people to . . . handle their insurance as competently as a bridge grandmaster, their expenditures as competently as a zen master.

And it’s all individually based.

I have a heck of a hard time getting people to see the point that there are less middle-income and above jobs than there are people seeking such jobs. And that with the serious erosion of manufacturing + unions as source of middle-class jobs, not enough different somethings together has taken its place.

An exception is when I talk about the possibility of a slow-motion crisis of automation. Then people do often listen.
I think the early 90s recession was when we started seeing a lot of these issues with jobs and health insurance. This was key in breaking the Nixon/Reagan coalition and forming today's Democratic coalition. However, this also lead to the rise of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot.
 
I place the start of the decline of the U.S. middle class in the early 1970s.

You're probably right. Bill Clinton had plans to help the middle class, such as a middle class tax cut and an economic stimulus, but these were mostly abandoned in the chaotic early days of his administration. Perhaps if he'd focused on these programs instead of health care reform (deciding to leave that for his second term), the right wing opposition to Clinton wouldn't have been quite as severe - at least not early on. But at a certain point there would be a backlash against his liberal programs.
 
. . . instead of health care reform (deciding to leave that for his second term), . . .
Yes, I tend to agree that Clinton should have focused on middle-class economics like a laser beam, and should have delivered on the middle-class tax cut he had promised in his campaign (instead of what did ask the rich to pay more, but was basically a deficit-reduction plan)

But he had also promised health care reform. :confused:

I think what happened is that the “managed care” proposals his administration put forward became a bunch of complicated gobble-de-gook in which you the regular citizen most probably lose,

Whereas the Family & Medical Leave Act, signed by Clinton early Feb. 1993, was straightforward legislation, able to be described on one-half of one piece of paper, in which the regular citizen almost certainly wins.
 
But he had also promised health care reform.

Obviously he would have to deliver at some point. Ideally it would be in 1997 if the Democrats have managed to regain their Congressional majorities the previous year. Personally I think a more seasoned Clinton with a clear mandate to govern might've been more successful in enacting health care reform.

But then again Clinton often proved to be his own worst enemy, so there's always the chance that a strategic error or the fallout from a sex scandal would still unravel his plans.
 
They didn't go through with the middle class tax cut because in polling and focus groups it didn't have any resonance, and people hadn't expected to receive it anyway, and it was at odds with deficit reduction. A major stimulus was never going to pass the Senate, and was probably unnecessary anyway by 1993 - what was proposed IOTL was a very modest stimulus of less than 20 billion which was very pork-y and was projected to have little economic impact, but that got bogged down in the Senate and cost Clinton politically.

They shouldn't have promised the tax cut, and should never have bothered with the stimulus. Clinton would have emerged on the budget with more political capital and without it looking like his agenda had died in Congress.
 
Last edited:
ap528118692098.jpg


https://prospect.org/article/five-fool-proof-tips-winning-town-hall-debate

In many ways, the 1992 election was an amazing election. But it may have raised expectations more than realistically possible.
 
. . . They shouldn't have promised the tax cut, . . .
But once they did, the Clinton team should have made sure the budget deal (which was primarily deficit-reduction) included at least some aspect(s) which were clear-cut middle-class tax cuts.

And a great way may have been to reverse legislation Reagan signed in 1983 in which 50% of social security benefits were taxable to the extent total income exceeded $25,000 for single persons, or $32,00 for married filing jointly.

Clinton could have raised these limits, and plus made sure the married filing jointly limit was exactly double that of single persons thereby ending this marriage penalty for senior citizens.

Instead, Clinton kept these same thresholds and added higher ones at which 85% of benefits would be subject to tax. Complicated, and a tax raise for some seniors no matter how you look at it.
 
Top