From email -
"L i b e r t y W i r e
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
[With Bill Clinton recently departed from the
White House, we thought you might enjoy reading an
article written just after Mr. Clinton entered the
White House. This was published in "Harry Browne's
Special Reports" in 1993. We hope it provides a
change of pace from the intensity and fervor of
today's political diatribes.]
Mr. Clinton's Mantra
by Harry Browne
July 26, 1993
Bill Clinton is without a doubt the most engaging,
persuasive president this country has had in my
lifetime -- which goes back to FDR. Neither Ronald
Reagan nor John F. Kennedy, each widely praised as
a presidential charmer, could hold a candle to
Mr. S. Willie.
In an interview, a news conference, or a prepared
speech, Mr. Clinton comes across as sincere,
down-to-earth, humble, extremely knowledgeable,
and passionate about his beliefs.
But it's also true that, in a profession in which
dishonesty is the first and foremost
qualification, Bill Clinton stands head and
shoulders above the pack when it comes to telling
whoppers. I have never in my life seen a man for
whom lies roll off the tongue with such ease.
And it's simply too much to believe that a man who
seems to have stored so many facts and figures in
his brain -- ready to be trotted out whenever the
appropriate question is asked -- doesn't realize
that what he's saying is completely opposite to
the truth of the matter at hand. Not only that,
too often what he says is completely opposite to
what he said just a few months or days earlier --
or even a few minutes ago.
Prevarication in Motion
On July 20, I watched him in action on _The Larry
King Show_. In that wonderful, engaging style of
his, the fibs came pouring out one after another.
Of course, all his stock cliches were there --
this is the "first serious effort," "I've spelled
out specific cuts,", "had to make the tough
choices," "gays have served with distinction,"
"ask the rich to pay their fair share," and so on.
Not to mention his #1 cliche -- "the past 12
years" -- which pops up at least every five
minutes.
But beyond these vacuous phrases and the endless
slogans were the misstatements, inconsistencies,
twisted logic, invented facts, and -- to put it
mildly -- barefaced lies.
One minute he said that all the savings from his
economic program were going into a trust fund to
reduce the deficit -- and that was an absolute
promise on his part. The next minute he was saying
there was plenty of money available for the
Mississippi flood victims because, thanks to lower
interest rates, the current year's deficit was
lower than expected.
At five minutes past the hour he was saying we
must encourage American businessmen to create more
jobs. At quarter past, he was saying you don't
have to worry about the tax bill because the rich
(American businessmen, I presume) were going to
pay almost all of it. By the half hour, he was
railing as usual about the rich getting a free
ride for -- you guessed it -- "the last 12 years."
But by quarter of, he was back on their side
again -- saying that deficit reduction would lower
interest rates enough that even the rich would
come out ahead.
A particularly outrageous whopper was his
statement that, because of his courageous efforts
to finally "come to grips with the deficit," the
recent Tokyo summit was the first time in (let's
all say it together now) "12 years" that foreign
leaders had treated an American president with
respect. It seems they had been pleading for
(ready now, 1-2-3) "12 years" for American
presidents to do something to stop "sucking money
from all over the world to pay for our deficits."
I guess at those state dinners Ronald Reagan was
made to sit at the children's table.
Of course, Larry King's audience isn't likely to
be aware that those foreign leaders have budget
deficits of their own that are as bad as -- or
worse than -- ours. And if Larry King were aware
of that, he still wouldn't be likely to call
attention to it and bite the presidential hand
that's feeding him.
Pushing Down Interest Rates Up
And, of course, Mr. Clinton bragged about having
brought interest rates down. To hear him tell the
story, you'd think that interest rates had been
rising steadily for the past -- well, 144
months -- until they suddenly started plunging
last November when the world realized that
"change" was in the air.
But the downward trend in long-term rates was in
motion long before last November -- and a 12-year
downward trend in short-term rates came to a halt
when it became apparent in October that Mr.
Clinton had the election sewn up.
With his patented abandon, a few minutes later Mr.
Clinton flip-flopped and took credit for the fact
that short-term rates _aren't_ falling. Thanks to
his "serious efforts" to do you-know-what after
you-know-how-long, short-term rates have stopped
falling -- allowing long-term rates to come down
to join them. Apparently, economic Nirvana means
having no gap between short and long rates.
Figuring out your Tax Increase
And, lastly, in his latest installment in the
continuing evolution of "how little the tax
increase will cost you," he said that you'll pay
only $1 a week in higher gasoline taxes. The rest
will come from soaking the rich. The preceding
week on the same show, a Democratic flack had said
it was $25 a year. In his State of the Union
address, it had been $17 a month. Tomorrow's
figure is likely to be 38-1/2¢ a day.
The current campaign to sell the budget deal is
focused on the idea that those who oppose it have
the crazy idea that a tax increase will cost them
something. Administration spokesmen, starting with
Mr. Bill and supported by journalistic sycophants
like Larry King, run around asking people how much
they earn and then reassuring them that they won't
be touched by the tax increase.
After all, the deficit is going to be reduced
entirely through spending cuts that are guaranteed
to take effect the day after the Messiah returns,
and by taxing the filthy rich retroactively from
the time of the Messiah's first visit.
Who Are the Rich?
In whatever Mr. Clinton says, the unspoken
assumption is that it's okay to soak the rich
because they don't do anything to deserve what
they have.
And this is perhaps the biggest lie of all.
There are some "idle rich" in this country. But
almost all of them earned the money they have. The
irony is that these "plutocrats" -- as well as the
inherited wealthy -- aren't the ones who will be
taxed to death.
The idle rich live mostly on their investment
income. And investment income is far, far easier
than employment income to shelter from taxes. For
example, you could draw a return from the
Permanent Portfolio Fund's Treasury Bill Portfolio
or the Versatile Bond Portfolio for years while
paying very little in taxes on the interest
earned. Those who are really rich will see
practically no change in their status from the tax
increase.
The people who will be hurt most by the new taxes
are those who are _trying_ to become rich -- those
who are working 12 hours a day providing products,
services, and employment for their fellow men in
the hope of earning a fortune. Current tax rates
already make fortune-building very, very
difficult. But the Clinton program will make it
virtually impossible.
In Bill Clinton's Brave New World, only someone
like Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Madonna will
earn so much money that he can still retain a
fortune after taxes. Of those who are working so
hard now, some will continue to do so -- hopeful
that they'll be among the chosen few to make so
much money that the awful tax rates will be
incidental. And some others will continue to work
hard because money isn't the motivation.
But a great many will throw in the towel because
the chance of success will become so remote. And
when they throw in the towel, they will throw out
their innovations, their services, the good jobs
they provide, and the inspiration they offer to
young people.
I figure that, in any society, roughly 10% will
work hard no matter how little they're rewarded,
and another 10% won't work no matter how much
they're offered. But the rest -- 80% or so of the
population -- are very sensitive to rewards. Hold
out enough carrots and you unleash their
creativity and energy. Take away monetary
incentives and they'll use their talents instead
to discover ways to avoid work.
When the Clinton program dampens the incentives of
the prime movers of the economy, the effect could
be devastating.
So is it true that the average person won't be
hurt by the new taxes? Hardly. We are all affected
by high taxes and regulations -- no matter whom
they're aimed at.
The beauty of government programs is that when
someone loses his job -- because his employer can
no longer support both him and his government --
the Clinton crowd can label the event a "failure
of the free market system."
And if the reduced economic activity causes tax
receipts to be much smaller than projected,
they'll be back again for another dip into our
pockets.
Jekyll & Hyde, Together Again
Meanwhile, back in the present, Bill Clinton
continues to project his unique combination of
apparent dedication and total deceit. He will
speak about some cause as though he's been
fighting for it all his life -- even if it's
completely contrary to what he advocated
passionately two months ago.
But the deceit is catching up with him. To offer a
platitude myself, he who tries to be all things to
all people eventually has the gratitude of none.
He promised the homosexuals he would end the
military ban with "a stroke of the pen," while
assuring Congressional Democrats he wouldn't let
social issues get in the way of raising more money
for them to spend. He spoke as a "New Democrat"
against quotas, while promising Lady McClinton's
friends that Quota-Queen Lani Guinier would get an
important job in the Justice Department.
And on it goes -- whether the topic is tax breaks,
appointments, MIAs, Bosnia, anything. On one thing
after another, he's taken both sides. As the
current joke goes, "They're adding two new faces
to Mount Rushmore -- Bill Clinton's."
Such duplicity is considered essential in a
political campaign. But most politicians drop a
large part of it once they're elected. They may
not believe the stories they tell, but at least
they usually stick to one side of the story. Mr.
Clinton, however, still goes around telling all
people he's on their side. More and more, he has
backed himself into a corner.
How Does He Do It?
By now he would have been laughed out of office if
it weren't for the press constantly reminding us
how much we need him.
What's that you say? "Everyone knows the press has
been highly critical of the president"?
Think about it. The journalists have criticized
his $200 haircut, his waffling, his poor
management, his foot-dragging on appointments, his
failure to sell his programs, and so forth. _But
the one area they don't criticize is his
policies._ They accept at face value -- and repeat
faithfully -- his every assumption about the
economy; about the free ride of the rich; about
interest rates falling because of his proposals;
about $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax
increase or $3 in spending cuts or $2 or $1 or
whatever the line is today; and about (ta-da!)
"the last 12 years."
The press has given legitimacy to the
inconsistencies, the lies, and the absurdities. If
the press truly were against him, if they
questioned even half his sloganeering assumptions,
his approval rating would be zero.
But the amazing thing is that, despite the support
of the press and despite the fact that Mr. Clinton
may be the most persuasive president ever, his
program has practically no public support. While
his arguments go virtually unchallenged by the
press, very few people are buying his ideas.
The Opposition
Part of the reason may be that this time around
there is an army of people fighting hard against
the Clinton plan, which is good news. But the bad
news is that the army is the Republican Party.
It's nice to see such weak-kneed types as Robert
Dole, [Senator] John Chafee, and [House Minority
Leader] Robert Michel fighting against tax
increases for a change. But I can't help feeling
that a large part of this army is going to go on
furlough before the battle is over.
By the time you read this, the tax plan may have
passed both houses of Congress. But it also may be
delayed because the Democratic leaders weren't
sure they had the votes.
And, Doctor, I keep having this recurring
nightmare. In it, Mr. Clinton realizes he's going
to have to negotiate with the Republicans. The
leaders of both parties meet with the president
and hammer out a compromise -- raising the top
income tax rate to only, say, 36%, instead of
39.6% (from today's 31%), and adding another $100
billion in spending cuts (scheduled for 1997,
meaning they'll never occur). Nearly all the
Democrats and half the Republicans vote for the
bill, putting it over the top, the Republicans
take bows for having saved the country from that
awful "tax and spend" package, and America goes
down the tubes.
Tell me, Doctor, am I paranoid?
---
Harry Browne was the 2000 Libertarian presidential
candidate. More of his articles can be read at
http//www.HarryBrowne.org ...."
Regards, Don |
