The American Spectator : You Can't Get There From Here

Text Size

You Can't Get There From Here

By J.T. Young on 2.16.12 @ 6:08AM

This year is many ways like 1996 -- except there'll be no great political bargains.

Unlike 1996, this year there will be no policy breakout from Washington's political logjam. With so many and such large problems facing it, there is a tantalizing prospect that Washington could still produce a major policy victory.

There is certainly precedent: 1996's welfare reform. Similar as 1996 and 2012 seem on the surface, the two will not yield similar results.

Sixteen years ago, Washington was also divided. Insurgent Republicans, fresh from momentous midterm gains, faced a weakened Democratic president seeking reelection. Twice the two parties attempted welfare reform and failed. However, the third try proved the charm and, in the words of President Clinton, ended "welfare as we have come to know it."

Welfare reform still stands as a signature achievement not just of 1996, but a fundamental change of one of America's major entitlement programs. Welfare became workfare, ended widespread dependency on government aid and saved money by giving states wide latitude in designing their programs.

So why couldn't Washington do something like this again in a presidential election year?

For one thing, today's problems are bigger than 1996's.

Sixteen years ago, the economy and the budget were relatively good. Then the deficit was $107 billion, amounting to just 1.4% of GDP. Real economic growth was 3.7% and the yearend unemployment rate was 5.4%.

Today, both are historically bad. Last year, the deficit was $1.3 trillion, amounting to 8.7% of GDP. Real economic growth was 1.6% and the yearend unemployment rate was 8.5%.

For another thing, the presidents' political circumstances vastly differ.

Clinton was a minority president, winning just 43% of the popular vote -- the lowest for a president since Wilson in 1912. Knowing he couldn't win reelection without increasing his coalition significantly, Clinton had no choice but to increase it and, with Republicans controlling Congress, no choice but to try to work with them.

Obama is a majority president, winning 53% of the popular vote -- the largest percentage for a Democratic president in 44 years. From Day One, Obama has known he could win reelection without increasing his coalition. Therefore, his primary motivation has been to retain it. And that doesn't require him to work with his opponents.

Despite suffering severe midterm election defeats, the two presidents' Congressional alignments are also very different.

Clinton's midterm defeat was a shattering setback -- Republicans gained full control of Congress for the first time in 50 years. This only confirmed Clinton's isolation and weakness in the wake of his health care failure.

Obama's midterm defeat was resounding, but Democrats still retained control of the Senate. Republican control of the House was hardly the shock it was in 1994 -- having regularly controlled it over the last 20 years. Democrats' retention of the Senate meant that far from isolated, Obama was insulated -- he has not had to face politically uncomfortable legislation -- as did Clinton.

Unsurprisingly, Clinton and Obama's first three years have been very different too. During Clinton's presidency, the Republican Congress and Democratic President were forced to work together. Results came, and difficult as they were to achieve, they provided the ground for further efforts. Both sides benefitted -- Clinton winning reelection and Republicans retaining Congress.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (22) | Leave a comment

Judy| 2.16.12 @ 6:21AM

Boehner has been very cowardly....He has forced Republicans to continue the Pelosi budget of 2009 instead of standing by the Ryan budget. Only about 50-60 Republicans are willing to back their own budget, and Boehner has co-opted them by forming a coaltion with 50-60 Democrats. First time in history a House Speaker has formed a coalition with the opposition against his own party.

Alan Brooks| 2.17.12 @ 12:50AM

But re the next decade, the one that still matters most historically, what was compassionate conservatism about?
disbursing funds to garner:
a) support for the war effort
b) votes for the Bush League.

So the last decade makes sense from a progressive viewpoint.

Alan Brooks| 2.17.12 @ 12:51AM

"a) support for the war effort
b) votes for the Bush League."

...Take way the name Bush and you have FDR.

POST American| 2.16.12 @ 7:19AM

-------------'90's Show' PSYCHOSIS OP---------------
-----------------------RED ALERT!----------------------

Surely this '90's Show' exceeds the usual Tavistock SAP OP rating.

Even the delusion levels of the Clinton era
are NOTHING to the unfolding 11th hour
DENIAL of this stage of the Globalist
TREASON and EUGENICS OP.

AGAIN, for the slow of thinking---

--------WE ARE DEALING WITH TREASON-------
-----------------------------------4 decades ON.

NO camp humor as the FEMA camps
behind ALLLL the 'camp' come to light.

TIME TO MOVE

Bobloblaw| 2.16.12 @ 8:12AM

excellent piece, especially the part where Obama won 53% and can win again without expanding his coalition, while Clinton only won 43% has was required to expand his. Thus expect the House and Senate to go the same way as the Presidential popular vote. If Obama wins re-election, the GOP will lose the House and the DEMs will hold the Senate. One party will emerge in Jan 2013 in complete control of govt.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.16.12 @ 8:46AM

Clinton followed the boom in the 1980's under Reagan's leadership, we had a mild economic downturn under G.H.W. Bush, the markets were booming in the early 1990's, and the Constitutional Republic was just fine. There was relative peace after the USSR imploded.

In the last dozen yeas, we have had the tech stock crash, 911 attack and subprime to devestate the market each time. Gallop is reporting 9% U3 unemployment and 19.1% U6 under-employment. Housing is frozen, GDP growth sucks and we have a Marxist who wants to be our Franco or Mussolini, maybe worse. The Constitution is used as toilet paper in the White House, and Americans are appalled.

I think that is the point, Mr. Young.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.16.12 @ 10:10AM

And, an Excellent Point, at that.

Anthony| 2.16.12 @ 9:25AM

I disagree with your premise Mr. Young, magnitude is not the issue here. Bill Clinton was a sociopathic liar, who, despite leftist leanings, mainly to please his base and get elected, was essentially a good ole boy at heart.
Clinton did not have the transformation of America as his desire. His only desire was power and how to keep it. He did what ever he needed to do to maintain his power and the perks, namely Air Force One, the flying brothel, hence his turn to the right after the mid-term debacle of 94.
Obozo, on the other hand, is a hard core elitist Marxist. In addition, he is not an American steeped in America's traditions. He is a Muslim, was raised a Muslim, and spent his formative years in Islamic madrasses. Unlike Clinton, Obozo despises America.
In hindsight, the 1996 election, with the Rs featuring the hapless Bob Dole, precurser to McCain, was not a transformative election.
The disease of Clintonism was a more basic American variety of elite leftism's continued moral and cultural decay and rot.
Obozo's disease is the complete transformation of American culture and society to that of a socialistic state.
Compared to Obozo, Clinton was rather banal and harmless, unless you were a woman.
Obozo, on the other hand, is the greatest threat that America has faced in its history.

Questionman| 2.16.12 @ 5:33PM

If Obama is a totalitarian Marxist, you are Hugo Chavez's kid sister and can pick up dog shit with your teeth while your hands are tied behind your back in your apron strings.

It's offical! ANyone whoi calls Obama a liar is a racist! ANd it's true. You racists are always so quick to brand Obama a liar! Thus proving that you think All black men are liars! Because you aholes destroyed a famous saying and made it about Obama!

Its true President Obama wasn’t properly vetted….wait, Yes he was!

But some of the racist right hated what they found, so they resort to create the biggest lies against Obama, which are NOW debunked!

Hard to believe that the possibility is that Anyone who calls Obama a liar is an hypocritical and/or racist who lies about this man’s religion, his birth certificate, his policies, etc. And who died and made them deciders on what’s truthful and what isn’t.

They lied about his religion, his birth certificate, his relationship with normal people, his sexuality, etc.

The list goes on and on, but that’s why websites like Politifact, Factcheck, TruthorFiction, etc. exist…

What is the factual basis for suggesting that President Obama is a Marxist? I know that the conservative talking heads frequently repeat that mantra, but I have yet to hear anyone substantiate that claim with real information.

This Republican congress, along with the far right base, is the most hateful, disrespectful, lying group of men and women in this country’s history.

Obama isn’t out to destroy the country, get your head out of your behind!

They are destroying this country because they hate Obama and are now playing with women’s health. Every woman and man should be deeply disturbed by what this congress has done and are doing.

The Republican Party is not a cancer in the body of America, a party of racists and religious bigots. The President doesn’t hate this country; I believe the extremist republicans hate this country because Obama is running this country. The President doesn’t cater to one race of people; he’s in this for all races of people. See, this is just an extreme far right post, which is designed to bate racism and hatred towards the President.

◦You know he’s not a Socialist. ◦You know he’s not a Nazi. ◦You know he’s not a Muslim. ◦You know he’s a U.S. citizen. ◦You know there are no death panels. ◦You know the economy crashed under W. ◦You know government isn’t any bigger than it was under W. ◦You know there’s no conspiracy to turn the U.S. communist.

But you repeat these ridiculous lies anyway, because you can’t say the real reason you hate Obama: YOU CAN’T STAND A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Anthony| 2.16.12 @ 6:10PM

Really, will Clarence Thomas do, or is he not black enough because he is conservative? How about Herman Cain, you moronic troll??
How is it in your incoherent leftist rant, and it is classic leftist tin foil hat insanity, you forgot to take exception to my calling Obozo a Muslim? You barely make mention of it.
Even in your wasted, spent mind, I'm at least half right about Obozo.
I think it's time you took your meds, don't you?

jstwndring| 2.16.12 @ 7:37PM

"What is the factual basis for suggesting that President Obama is a Marxist? I know that the conservative talking heads frequently repeat that mantra, but I have yet to hear anyone substantiate that claim with real information."

Wow, ignorance so proudly put on display! Thank you, for making this easy for me. Now, the proof that Obama is a Marxist comes from his own mouth. You obviously don't remember the rather public exchange between Obama and a guy the press called, Joe the Plumber. In that exchange, Obama said that he believed in, "...the fair and equitable redistribution of wealth". The fair and equitable redistribution of wealth is code for the ending of all private property rights. It's something Marxist tyrants (like Obama) say to get simpletons (like you) to support him in his cause for "Social Justice". What it means in the end, is the loss of individual liberty for all, because, it gives the government the authority to arbitrarily decide who gets to keep their property, and, who does not. Study the history of communist nations like the former Soviet Union to see what happened. There are plenty of other examples as well. Actually, look at the French Revolution for the ensuing madness that occurred in the name of the "Greater Good".

As to the rest of your post, which amounts to nothing more than a racist rant by you, I have one name to give: Herman Cain. Of course, your hitmen in the media made relatively short work of him, didn't they?

merlin| 2.19.12 @ 12:07PM

Questionman, did you answer one of those work at home ads? Are you being paid by the line by someone (Soros?)? If you are this irrational and incoherent withour getting paid for it, you need to adjust your meds.

youfamissim| 2.16.12 @ 10:22AM

Welfare reform merely assumed another shape. Progressives are good at taking a loss and morphing it into another configuration that does the same thing. Welfare has returned in another agency and less visible organizations. 56% of welfare recipients own their own homes - and a car - often 2 or more. If a woman with 2 children plays her cards right - she can collect near $60K a year. Welfare reform my butt.

DatsunMark| 2.16.12 @ 11:00AM

One other point to make....if the Republicans nominate Romney he will lose like Bob Dole/John McCain. We might take the Senate but there will be no re-election for Obama to consider...therefore he can lame duck and blame the republicans for everything that happens for the next four years.

Anthony| 2.16.12 @ 11:23AM

It's far more sinister than that Datsun. If Obozo is re-elected, he will give the middle finger to Congress and the Courts that defy him.
He will govern as a dictator, daring a R senate and house to impeach and convict him. He will ignore their legislation and govern by executive fiat.
He knows how feckless and weak the Rs are and he will use the media and the threat of civil unrest to keep the Rs in their place.
He will do what he damn well pleases and all the Rs will do is bleat like the lambs that they are.
However, there may be civil unrest, not of Obozo's or the R establishment's liking. It's called the law of unintended consequences, American patriot style.

DatsunMark| 2.16.12 @ 7:53PM

Anthony,
You are right and Obamination already defies the law. I'm purchasing an 18 round clip so with two taps each (Zombie style) I can take 9 down before they get to me.

Al Adab| 2.16.12 @ 11:42AM

They parties have diverged so much over the last decade that there no longer is room for political compromise. It is about power and control for the one and sadly about status quo for the other. What is needed is a Conservative reemergence a revitalization of primciple over pragmatism and the restoration of a government that realizes it exists to protect the rights of the citizens not to provide the needs of its' subjects. Paternalism will be our downfall.

Marc Jeric| 2.16.12 @ 1:08PM

Gingrich is a bit too flamboyant for my taste - but he forced down the throat of that iompeached disbarred felon Clinton to swallow the welfare reform and 4 balanced budgets in a row (for which the present Democrats take credit-imagine!).

PattyMor| 2.16.12 @ 4:42PM

Ginrich has flaws, but the created the strategy to take over the House against long odds. Even his own party didn't believe him. And then Gingrich DID SOMETHING WITH HIS POWER: He passed welfare reform and balanced the budget. No other Republican can make these boasts: not Reagan, nor GWB.

But indeed the times are different. Clinton bascally gave away our factories to China by allowing them into the WTO and signing a trade deal with them. With all the U.S. costs piled on, I don't know if they can come back. So now we're dead broke and not enough jobs. Is this enough of an impetus to get people to vote Obummer out before he finishes us off for good? Maybe people are too addicted to "free" stuff to care enough to get their freedom back. Is being a slave more comfortable?

BackToBasics| 2.16.12 @ 10:28PM

I think this is the first time I've supported Clinton, but at least he is an American-born citizen; Obam is not. Obam makes him look somewhat better than he used to look and even a marginal lift for Clinton is a difficult thing to do and for that I'll bet Clinton is thankful.

Skin Lady| 2.16.12 @ 11:03PM

Gingrich is a scumbag, Santorum is a bigot, and Romney hides his money from US taxes. Hmmm...way to go Republican party.

Garfield| 2.19.12 @ 2:23PM

Clinton and Gingrich were able to compromise, because Clinton wasn't an ideologue, he was relatively pragmatic.

The problem that Boehner is having is that Harry Reid is corrupt and wants to play politics instead of doing what is best for the country and Obama is an ideologue. The media is willing to cover for Reid and Obama.

If Boehner puts his foot down and government screeches to a halt, the Republicans get all the blame due to the lieing media.

If Boehner caves to keep the American people from getting hurt, it ticks off the base of the party.

So Obama and Reid are perfectly content with refusing to compromise on anything, cause they can blame Boehner and Republicans for everything and get away with it.

Unfortunately we have a corrupt individual running right now known as Mitt Romney that plays right into Obama's re-election campaign. Santorum doesn't really have much of a plan to get this country going, and is being painted as a theocrat.

The one man with an idea of what needs to be done has been smeared and maligned by the establishment and Obamney.

We need Newt Gingrich to be the nominee, he's the one that has actually planned things out.

Beating Obama isn't going to solve things, it is only step 1. We need someone that knows what to do after step 1 is completed.