I hate to take issue with my friend Bruce Bartlett, but his
column today arguing in favor of a
Democratic takeover of Congress misses the mark. In particular,
this paragraph seems off:
I believe that the good economic times of the late
1990s resulted largely from gridlock -- Democrat Bill Clinton
couldn't get his plans through a Republican Congress and he blocked
its initiatives. So for a blessed six years government was
basically on automatic pilot. The result was budget surpluses
instead of deficits, low unemployment, high wages and a
skyrocketing stock market. Who wouldn't go back to those times if
we could? Bringing back gridlock could to the trick.
The economy isn't exactly in the doldrums right now.
Unemployments is low, the Dow has reached a record high, wages
don't seem to be increasing but total compensation is, and the
deficit is shrinking. On that point, going back wouldn't yield huge
improvement.
Furthermore, do we really want to go back to a period when the
growing threat of Islamofacism was largely ignored? But that's
where we are headed should the Dems win. A Representative who says
this election "shouldn't be about national security" and a Senator
who boasts about killing the Patriot Act? Giving the keys to Nancy
Pelosi and Harry Reid is a surefire way to take a drive down
Not-Serious-About-Fighting-Terrorism Street.
topics:
Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Islam, NATO