LETTER: Clinton's presidency has not played out as he promised

---

by Brian Harms

---

To the editor:

Readers of the Thresher this year have no doubt noticed Sheffy Gordon's regular column for the Rice Young Democrats. Unfortunately, there has been no counterbalancing column from a politically conservative thinker.

This is unfortunate because Sheffy spends much of his time blasting Republicans and conservative thought.

Recently, his March 15 column ("Clinton best prospect") gave us his views of "some of the issues at hand" in this year's presidential race. The column dealt with his analysis of the Republican candidates and their views.

While I would need to write a small book to refute his unfounded, inflammatory portrayals of Republican policies, I can offer evidence to dispel his angelic portrayal of President Clinton and his policies.

We must honestly examine the premise that Clinton skillfully campaigned as a moderate but has governed as a liberal. We must also honestly evaluate President Clinton's record as opposed to his 1992 campaign promises.

First consider taxes. Who can forget that the central item to Clinton's campaign was the middle-class tax cut? It was the weapon with which he crucified George Bush and "Read my lips. No new taxes."

With the same analysis, Clinton should be booted out since he presided over the largest tax increase in American history by passing the 1993 budget.

And let's not kid ourselves with the notion that this money is being used in a serious effort to reduce the deficit. Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Clinton budget in March 1993 revealed that it had $267 billion in new taxes but only $55 billion in spending cuts.

Does this sound like a person who's really concerned with reducing government spending?

Jumping ahead to the current budget battles, recall that Clinton originally stood against those mean Republicans and their seven-year balanced budget plan with a 10-year plan of his own. Later, he caved in and agreed to a seven-year plan with tax cuts .

Remember, this is an election year, so these tax cuts should bring to mind his 1992 promise. In 1992, Clinton used health care reform as a central tenet of his campaign. He presented it as a plan to cap costs and guarantee health care for all.

Thankfully, the American people later saw this as a dangerous plan to completely nationalize one-seventh of the U.S. economy.

Clinton's plan was so radical that he couldn't get it past a Democratic Congress.

Of course, presidential elections are decided by the economy, so we must examine this as well. Clinton promised to get the economy out of the recession of a few years ago through his budget plan, and it's true that the economy has done reasonably well during his presidency.

But people are worried about their jobs and the economy, and personal income is stagnant.

There is a simple reason why people are worried: They are being taxed into serfdom by the federal government.

Recall, Clinton's budget had the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

Recall that Clinton promised the American people the highest ethical standards of any presidency.

Now think of the scandal in the White House Travel Office, Clinton's famous airport haircut and the ongoing investigation of Whitewater.

These actions are not minor foibles and mishaps in a presidency. These are major contradictions and deceitful campaign promises which should anger you.

The president has not only not done what he promised in 1992; he has done exactly the opposite!

Unfortunately, Clinton is a masterful campaigner who is at his best giving politically moderate feel-good messages to America.

Except this time around the American people can contrast them to what he's actually done.

When presidential campaigning seriously begins later this year, Clinton will attempt to usurp all the best parts of the Republican platform: cutting taxes, reducing spending, reducing the deficit and promoting the family. But remember, this will be lip service which does not reflect his record.

Brian Harms

SRC '98

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the March 29, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.