Old Media Again Lets Clinton Take Credit for 1990s Economy

Photo of Tom Blumer.
By Tom Blumer | February 18, 2008 - 15:29 ET

I see that Bill Clinton is once again taking credit for the "good things" that happened in the 1990s, as Jack Tapper at ABC's Political Punch reports:

"There are two competing moods in America today," Clinton said. "People who want something fresh and new -- and they find it inspiring that we might elect a president who literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any of the bad things that were stopped before. The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that 'No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights. We're not going to have any of those anymore.' Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you."

I also see that Tapper is letting Mr. Clinton's claims pass as if they are undeniable facts, as others in Old Media have done for so many years:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Presumably, by "any of the good things that happened" in the 1990s, Clinton is referring to the things he did as president (except for the ones his wife now distances herself from, such as NAFTA).

The "good things" that happened in the 1990s were primarily economic. There's little doubt that Mr. Clinton's latest brags capitalize on the established folklore that his administration is responsible for the good things that happened in the 1990s economy, but not for the difficulties that became evident during the final year of his stewardship and carried into the administration of George W. Bush.

So let's recount the economy of the 1990s:

  • First, give Mr. Clinton credit for NAFTA (sorry, anti-free traders), which helped set the table for feast to come later.
  • That said, really good things didn't start consistently happening until 1996, shortly after the 1994 Gingrich Revolution, when the GOP took over Congress and the Senate.
  • During its first couple of years, the GOP-controlled Congress made progress in getting the federal budget under a semblance of control, especially on the spending side of the ledger. The economy and the stock market responded positively; unfortunately, the non-defense spending improvements didn't last.
  • For four years starting in 1997, welfare reform, which Clinton only signed once it was clear that his political survival depended on it (4th para at link), stimulated the economy to an underappreciated degree. First, it put an average of over 500,000 new adults per year into the workforce during that time. Second, the addition of so many new workers with additional spending power had a unquantifiable but very real multiplier effect. Finally, the two points just mentioned improved the federal budget situation, as it reducted dependency outlays while increasing tax collections from the newly productive and their multiplier-effect beneficiaries.
  • The gutting of the military (something, it should be noted, Congress failed to adequately resist) had a positive economic impact, but a horrible longer-term effect on national security.
  • Also in 1997, a GOP-driven supply-side capital gains tax cut (8th para at link), not exactly the Clintonians' favorite idea, further fueled the prosperity and created yet another tax-collections boomlet.

Sadly, by early 2000, investment community hype (check the party affiliations and political contributions of many of those most involved in it sometime), investor greed, and lax Clinton Administration SEC enforcement led to the bursting of the NASDAQ/Internet bubble, which officially began on March 10 of that year.

By the third quarter of 2000, the economy was in near-recession. Only years later did we see that the economy contracted 0.5% during that quarter. The government's final revision at the time said that the economy grew 2.2%. Hmmm.

The historical record shows that besides helping to push through NAFTA, Bill Clinton and his administration had very little to do with the good things that happened in the mid/late-1990s US economy, and quite a bit to do with how it came tumbling down from 2000-2002.

Moving to the present, a Hillary Clinton Administration probably won't have a fiscally conscious GOP-led Congress around to make her look good. Little if anything in what Mrs. Clinton wants to do would substantively improve the economy, and many of her ideas would clearly make things worse.

Following a long tradition with Democratic presidential contenders, Old Media isn't exploring the potential negative economic impact of what Mrs. Clinton is proposing.

Cross-posted, with minor revisions, at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters

Topics:

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bad things

February 18, 2008 - 16:10 ET by iveseenitall

The "bad things" done during the Clinton years far outweigh the "good" things. The guy was (is) a digrace! But we survived. Now it's his wife's turn, or maybe we'll get that other incompetent fellow. We've had Moe. Now maybe it'll be Larry or Curly.

NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"

Another Land Deal?

February 18, 2008 - 17:04 ET by zeestephen

Bill Clinton - "If you believe that, I've got some land I wanna sell you."

Good idea, Bill.  That "Whitewater" thing sure worked out well for everyone.

economics

February 18, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Wesen

Clinton's economy was successful because fundamentally he did not alter Reagan's policies. The credit goes to Ronald Reagan.

1987

February 18, 2008 - 16:29 ET by dbo

...and also because of consistent monetary policy by Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan.

Clinton's "Fairytale"

February 18, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Miket53

It's nice to see some facts. Most people blow right past the fact that we had a republican congress which of course passes the laws. Clinton was riding along on known republican issues and now makes it appear like those were "democratic" concepts. If a dem gets in this year I think they will spend...and expand entitlement programs  so much it will be a liberal tsunami sweeping across the shores of America.

lastly....if Hillary gets in she will be overshadowed and embarrassed by Bill wherever she goes. When dignitaries visit who will they run to and shake hands with first....ol' Bill.

Miket53   http://mtaricani.blogspot.com/

Summarizing Clinton economy - from Progressive POV

February 18, 2008 - 15:58 ET by Gary Hall

If the MSM were true to their cause, they would look at the Clinton economy thru the same lens they look at everything else, including economics when Repubicans are in power - they would read and report to the public what the progressive/liberal economists said about the Clinton economy (my bold):

From: THE NEW ECONOMY GOES BUST: WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS By Dean Baker October 29, 2001

"The first step in dealing with the current recession is to recognize clearly its cause. On this point, there can be little ambiguity. The cause of the recession was the collapse of the stock market bubble."

"The decision by the Federal Reserve Board and the Clinton Administration not to take any actions to try to limit the run-up of the stock bubble was a mistake that the nation will suffer from for many years to come."

"Even the most cursory review of the data shows that the "new economy" was mostly hype. ..  Real wage growth averaged less than half a percentage point annually for a typical worker. "

"Furthermore, it was an enormous failure of public policy, not to warn people about the stock market bubble that created this situation. At a macro level, it will be difficult to again pump up the economy in the wake of the collapsing bubble. At the individual level, millions of households now find themselves with insufficient savings to pay for their retirement or their children's education."

"The stock market bubble created a huge amount of unpredicted wealth, which has quickly dissipated. Millions of families have been hurt as a result."

March, 2001. Baker:

As a result, millions of families have seen their dreams of a secure retirement or their children's college education vanish with the stock market bubble. The level of negligence of the nation's political leaders in ignoring the stock bubble exceeds anything since the days of Herbert Hoover."

From: May 2003,  Bursting Bubbles. Dean Baker:

In 2000, President Clinton could legitimately boast of the “best economy in 30 years.” Unemployment was low, wages were rising at all income levels, and the poverty rate was headed downward at a rapid pace. But after President Bush took office in 2001, the economy fell into recession, shedding jobs and causing real wage growth to slow and eventually stop altogether.

A convenient story explains this sharp economic reversal. According to the script, Clinton eliminated the deficit through progressive tax increases and spending restraint. This deficit reduction lowered interest rates and spurred an investment boom, which was the basis for the extraordinary growth of the late ’90s. Then Bush came into office and quickly squandered the surplus with his tax cuts to the rich and military build-up. As a result, the deficit skyrocketed and the economy tanked.

It’s a good story, but the reality is quite different. The Clinton boom was built on three unsustainable bubbles. One of them, the stock bubble, has already burst. The other two bubbles—the dollar bubble and the housing bubble—are still with us. The dollar bubble is starting to deflate, and the housing bubble is perhaps just now reaching its peak. These bubbles created the basis for the 2001 recession and the economy’s continuing period of stagnation...

I note that once Bush became President, the MSM has often invited Dean Baker's negative analysis of the Bush economy. The MSM had no use for Baker's negative view of the Clinton economy, as that would not serve the MSM's agenda.  

Great stuff, Tom.

Clinton's "economy."

February 18, 2008 - 16:02 ET by R D Helm

Juat think how much better it would have been had it not been for Bill's hideous tax increase.

Conversely, how much worse the economy would have been had the republicans not taken over the congress in '94, which pulled the plug on further tax increases that we all know the dems were working on?

Watch it, RD, Clinton

February 18, 2008 - 19:05 ET by motherbelt

Watch it, RD, Clinton thinks the tax increase was WHY the economy was so good.

The fact is, it was so good that even his ridiculous tax increases couldn't kill it.

By Clinton's reasoning, if you continuously interfere with firefighters and they still manage to put the fire out, you can say your interference with them actually helped.

He and his wife really do believe the country can be taxed and regulated into prosperity. And she meant it when she said she intended to "manage the economy." Did you see her list of things she wants to regulate? Oil companies, drug companies, the insurance industry, the mortgage industry, the credit card industry, Wall Street, and Student Loan providers.

And I think that's just for starters.

motherbelt..

February 18, 2008 - 19:16 ET by Gary Hall

"The fact is, it was so good that even his ridiculous tax increases couldn't kill it."

Good point, but I'd suggest (read my little (ha) bit above) that the economy was not that good. It was just a big fast flying bubble; the opening salvo of nothing more than a boom. And guess what? Bust follows closely behind. All that was given was taken right back, when it busted. All the money, all the jobs, all the insurance gains (speaking of the uninsured). In fact, tens of millions of middle to middle upper class workers, ended up further behind than when it all started.  

Remember, even the rich and the CEO's got richer under Clinton than under Bush.  The R/E bubble is another one which has been with us for a long time - even has it's roots back in the 90's (and in policy, then).

And you're right about the tax increases -- in the short term, the tax increaes or the tax cuts don't have a significant effect on the economy, however,  the media's biased presentation of them, combined with the sucker mentality of the people, has an effect on the economy. (;~> gary

You're right, Gary, a lot

February 18, 2008 - 19:27 ET by motherbelt

You're right, Gary, a lot of it was on paper...the dot.com boom.

But I do remember when George W. Bush warned before the 2000 election that the bubble couldn't last, and in fact was beginning to show signs of deflating, he was quickly accused of "talking down the economy" for political gain. This accusation was made my a lot of the same people that had parroted Bill Clinton's false claim in 1992 of "the worst economy in 50 years!"

But it is a fact of political life that, even though they do little and have no real control, Presidents get credit for a good economy and blame for a bad one.

motherbelt..

February 18, 2008 - 19:49 ET by Gary Hall

"Bush warned before the 2000 election that the bubble couldn't last, and in fact was beginning to show signs of deflating"

Interesting that Bush had to warn. You catching this? Unlike now, when the MSM is warning us nonstop for years on end of impending economic disaster, back then the media was still praising the bubble -- all to get Gore in office. But the economists were warning - they were screaming. Even the lefties had noticed early on. Look at this little bit (based on facts) from leftist columnist Robert Scheer:

June 6, 2000 in the Los Angeles Times
 
What great news last week--116,000 people, mostly black, Latino and poor, lost their jobs. The stock market boomed in appreciation, and a few new NASDAQ billionaires and many more millionaires were anointed. ..

 It's a bit of satire. He was attacking capitalism and wall street, his mantra, but you'll get the point; In one week, mind you, 116,000 mostly minorities were loosing their jobs as early as June of 2000 (the crash began in March, 2000) -- but our MSM will still tell you that it was George Bush who caused the loss of jobs.

 

motherbelt,,

February 18, 2008 - 19:26 ET by R D Helm


And I think that's just for starters.

You are correct, she hasn't even gotten warmed up yet.

I also am of the belief that health care is not the only area in which Hillary wishes to facilitate a government takeover. If the industries you mention above were to be (I believe intentionally) run into the ground by her lunacy, care to guess what would be her proposed solution?

Scary thought, that is.

 

If you haven't seen this,

February 18, 2008 - 19:37 ET by motherbelt

If you haven't seen this, check it out....this is where I got that list:

Clinton vs. Business

Not Clinton's Doing

February 18, 2008 - 17:32 ET by Del Dolemonte

from a NY Times editorial in February of 2000...when they use the word "unrecognized" here, in reality they mean "unreported".

"Though unrecognized at the time, the current recovery began in March 1991, long before Bill Clinton defeated President George Bush on the assertion that he did not know how to manage the economy."

http://query.nytimes...

Clinton retroactive Taxes killed the economy

February 18, 2008 - 18:12 ET by Lame Cherry

When George HW Bush read his lips and was suckred by George Mitchell of the Democrats to raise taxes, it proved that the Reagan economy could indeed absorb a tax increase, but it would choke it.

It was Bill Clinton's retroactive taxes, cutting the military purchasing budget and sending jobs overseas which brought on the 1999 recession which I predicted. Too many people still look at it as a 2000 recession involving George W. Bush, but the recession began in the fall of 1999.

George Bush in his spend hog policy with dumping money into the economy created the housing bubble burst which was the same mirror image of the dotcom bust. When globalists print huge amounts of currency, inflation sets in, the money is absorbed in markets as it is cheap and globalists have it to invest and the nightmare bursts occur which we in America are going through now.

Tapper is an ignorant. Clinton mismanaged the entire federal system almost as certain as George HW Bush mismanaged the "peace dividend".

Ronald Reagan had correct policy, George W. Bush was forced to patch his Dad's and Bill Clinton's failures and here America is stuck once again with no policy and no candidates from Gore in waiting for bridegroom Obama to be left at the altar to best man McCain who understand one wit of what this nation requires to fix this horrid policy.
Worst part was I read last night that Ron Paul is touted now as "the Conservative branch of econmic policy on the right". Ron Paul is retard on foreign policy, economic policy and domestic policy.

What has this nation come to when dolts are the "experts" who have no historical understanding of the disaster of their meanderings, but say things as this sounds good.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Even Alan Colmes

February 18, 2008 - 18:43 ET by Dustin Jolley

Even Alan Colmes has given President Clinton credit for the economy. Sad, sad, sad. Lol.

uh,

February 18, 2008 - 18:43 ET by Wesen

I think the only thing I'd disagree with is the fact that it was Bill Clinton, not HW who wasted the inheritance and gains we received from Reagan... one in particular, the peace dividend went down the toilet.

Isn't it amazing? I mean

February 18, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Dave D

Isn't it amazing? I mean when the media talks about the economy they always seem to mention stagnant wages for the last 30 years. Odd how 8 of those years were the wonderful "Clinton 90's".

The Clinton "good things"

February 18, 2008 - 19:14 ET by zf

The Clinton "good things" evaporated quicker than spit. While his bad things we are stuck with indefinetely.

Lets see here......

February 18, 2008 - 21:27 ET by ThreePuttinDude

Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson among others.....

yep, he sure did have a great track record there.....
Oh wait a minute, that was "W" that caused that one...
how could I not know that

Had the child molester been

February 18, 2008 - 21:51 ET by kstc

Had the child molester been attending to the business, the less than 50 percent elected him to do, he might have something to discuss. However, his purent interest in underage children cost this country more than the MSM will ever admit. The only reason we have to continue to listen to this child molester is because Trent Lott didn't do his job when Clinton was brought to trial before the Senate for removal from office after he had been impeached.  The damage goes beyond the economy.  

 

If you ask me, he was in the

February 19, 2008 - 00:46 ET by Blackwater

If you ask me, he was in the right place at the right time. The Soviet Union had fallen, you're the lone super power of the world, the internet is taking a real hold and now old communist countries are turning capitalist. You'd have to be a moron to mess this up. Everything came together perfectly.

I'm sorry, but I think

February 19, 2008 - 02:05 ET by cleverpig

I'm sorry, but I think having been president of the United States for 8 of the 10 years in a decade entitles you to claim to have been "part of" the good things that happened during that decade.

Accusing him of taking all of the credit for all of the good is just putting words in his mouth. You guys just deperately want him to be saying something stupid which, here, he is not.

Only....

February 19, 2008 - 10:44 ET by Tom Blumer

If you can cite something HE did to contribute to it.

Other than NAFTA, which most libs seem to oppose, you can't.

Instead, he resisted welfare reform, imposed an economy-stifling tax increase, and sued Microsoft. 

Most important, his SEC stood by while dozens or hundreds of companies based on nothing more than fluff and hope raised billions of dollars in equity and did little more than burn through it, while hyping their stock prices to ridiculous levels. All of this set the stage for a stock meltdown not seen since the Great Depression.

I studiously avoided the word "all" in this NB post, though I would contend that Mr. Clinton is usually implying "all." 

But he didn't actually make

February 19, 2008 - 23:19 ET by cleverpig

But he didn't actually make any claims to having been responsible for any of those things. That's what you assume he meant.

His government sued Microsoft, but he also passed a law extending copywrite protections to software to prevent reverse engineering. If you don't think that was important for the technology boom you're insane!

Increased taxes for some, also balanced the budget, something I bet fiscal conservatives wish Bush cared a little about!

He might also have been referring to stopping ethnic cleansing in Serbia, or brokering an accord between Israelis and Palestinians, or bringing Sinn Fein to the table in Ireland.

Or he could have meant some of the legislation that I wasn't happy about but conservatives probably applaud, including the Defense of Marriage Act and the Telecom Reform Act which allowed Clear Channel to own all of your radio stations.

You don't get to put words into his mouth and then demand that I defend them!

Look closer at his first two

February 19, 2008 - 23:36 ET by Hunter12

Look closer at his first two years.  It's after a Republican House and Senate are seated that the economy really takes off in '94.  A lot of the stuff that he takes credit for came out of the Contract with America.  Look how quickly a Democratic congress has turned a good economy in the other direction.  Guess we aren't supposed to notice they haven't accomplished anything of substance, despite their claims of a first 100 days of change.  Pelosi is worthless and Harry is too busy making money on land deals in Nevada and Arizona.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

My point is not that Clinton

February 20, 2008 - 23:43 ET by cleverpig

My point is not that Clinton was a fantastic president. My point is that nowhere in the quote presented above does he claim to be! The headline of the post says Clinton "takes credit for 1990's economy." He never mentioned the economy. It is completely misleading, full of assumptions about what he was referring to, which you then bash him for having the audacity to... not mention? I hate that kind of crap! Ironically, it is exactly the kind of stuff this site is great at catching when the left does it. Unfortunately, you apparently aren't immune to a little media bias yourselves!

CP

February 22, 2008 - 03:32 ET by Tom Blumer

I'll assume you're late to all of this.

Any Clintonista who talks about how great his administration was ALWAYS cites the economy first (and usually that's it). Clinton himself has generally been no different.

Usually that's it, because besides NAFTA (which is econony-related anyway), he himself did virtually NOTHING. The items you cited earlier are either weak, wrong (Israeli-Palestinians? Surely you jest), or of little importance to political rally audiences.

So he could not have been talking about ANYTHING ELSE.

"Good things that happened in the 1990s" has been Clintonista code for "the 1990s economy" for at least 10 years -- ever since it, and his supposedly high poll numbers, were trotted out as the reasons not to impeach or convict him.

 

That was supposed to be Bill's great legacy to mankind, too.

February 22, 2008 - 04:05 ET by tracheostomy

Tom sez:  The items you cited earlier are either weak, wrong (Israeli-Palestinians? Surely you jest)

Heh, not for lack of trying.  All he got from that was a sweaty Madeline Albright who nearly threw up after chasing Arafat's limo in heels.

Not our proudest diplomatic moment, I assure you.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Trake

February 22, 2008 - 04:17 ET by Cool Arrow

I thought the intervention in Kosovo was BJ Clinton's legacy.

That's working out real good, don'tcha think?

♣ a seal

Cool, I thought of that

February 22, 2008 - 15:19 ET by bigtimer

Cool,

I thought of that exact thing last night listening to Hillary bring it up...

I couldn't believe how tone deaf she was...

I started laughing out loud.

So now we judge peace

February 22, 2008 - 15:13 ET by cleverpig

So now we judge peace efforts only on whether they last forever, not whether they help at the time?

The economy may have been what he was talking about. I still think it's incredibly silly to bash the media for "letting him get away with" a claim he didn't actually make. He was "part of" that era. So was a republican congress. The whole point of that quote seems to be that Obama wasn't in the picture, and that it's easy to say you will unite people when you haven't actually tried to do it before. He's saying yeah, we had fights, things were still good. It's a perfectly valid point, and one I'm surprised the republicans haven't picked up yet given how strong Obama is playing as the fresh young outsider here to shake things up.

Once you've decided that he couldn't possibly have been talknig about anything else, then you've just created a loop of reasoning that means you'll always be right. Clinton always talks about the economy so he must always be talking about the economy. Nice job.