AHC: high trajectory for Newt's 1994 Repub. majority in U.S. House, Bob Dole in Senate?

The economy was going to keep getting better from '94 to 2000. So, pretty much anything the Republicans wanted to try would likely "work." Giving them pretty of time for something to work for real.

Thinking high trajectory, what might they do which would work well both policy-wise and politically?

I mean, take this car out and give it a test drive! :)
 
Maybe the Republicans could cut social spending, even agriculture support which is a very big ticket item. All of this would both do some harm and some good.

Would Clinton sign this? He would if the Republicans did a good job of politicking.

And with the money saved, maybe a combo of middle-class tax cuts and infrastructure spending.
 
What I'm asking is, what if the Republicans were able to pass economic legislation in 1994 which basically helped economic growth and middle class jobs, say, the top 80% of genuinely beneficial legislation as far as what's possible?

That is, the Republicans get it about right.

Any takers?
 
http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/

November 14, 1995

Deadline passes; budget talks fail to avert shutdown -Full Story-
Federal workers bear brunt of budget breakdown -Full Story-
Text of Clinton's government shutdown address -Full Story-
Congressional GOP leaders' statements on the budget -Full Story-
.
.
.
.
.
January 27, 1996

Next up in the budget battle: playing the debt-ceiling card -Full Story-
Clinton radio address - 'The era of big government is over'
GOP radio address - 'Let the American spirit soar'
Third federal shutdown averted -Full Story-
Wow, there are a lot of details flying around! :p
 
Maybe Gingrich and Clinton could privatize Social Security-some accounts suggest they could have done it before the Lewinsky scandal came out.
 
Maybe Gingrich and Clinton could privatize Social Security-some accounts suggest they could have done it before the Lewinsky scandal came out.
I for one am glad this didn't come to pass.

In a book on personal financial management, they said what people had available for retirement basically broke down in three separate sets of 30%. Now, 10% died before retirement age, which admittedly is an argument for enjoying life right now rather than worrying about a retirement which may never come. Or, I ask, can you do both? Of course you can.

• 30% of people mainly only have social security at retirement.

• 30% have some additional income plus social security.

• 30% have substantial savings and/or a pension plus social security for a comfortable retirement.

To me, transforming social security into presumably various types of private mutual funds kind of takes away the baseline.

-----------------------

All the same, if it did pass, would make for an interesting timeline in how it played out. :)
 
Last edited:
And the big one, I'd say prevent the 2008 financial institution meltdown.

Conservatives often believe in allowing markets to work and greater market transparency. Alright, play to that strength and avoid the subprime mortgage re-sale bubble. :p
 
The shit with "Long Term Capital Management" almost hit the fan in 1998.
https://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/7386/ltcm-2.htm

The Republicans could have used this as a club to go after Democrats, and thus almost accidentally ended up advocating for smart, transparent regulation of financial institutions.

And there really is a sense, and I say this as a good liberal, that Republicans were more traditional good government advocates in the 1990s. And hell yes, this could have played to strength.
 
Top