Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
Whatever you say about President Bill Clinton, you have to admire his ability to test the political winds.
He is a veritable political anemometer.
He is the ultimate politician.
Earlier this week, he held a press conference. He was surrounded by gleeful aides. He drew a large zero on "Budget Deficit" flip chart.
Can you imagine the sentiment among congressional Republicans as they watched and wondered what happened to their idea.
The balanced budget - the main component of the "Contract With America" - has become the Clinton administration's claim to fame.
Amidst all the hoopla of the 1999 budget surplus, there was no mention of how Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming with a gun to his head toward the cause of deficit reduction - much less a balanced budget.
Before Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, a balanced budget was out of the question. Deficit spending was a way of life.
With the Republicans leading the charge for black ink, Clinton submitted budgets that promised balance in 12 years. Then 10. Then seven. Finally, in the 1997 budget agreement, he promised a balanced budget in five years, by 2002.
Does anyone remember how the evil Republicans shut down the government over the budget? Does anyone remember how the president vilified the evil Republicans for "draconian" cuts and for literally starving children and old people? All this because they called for a reduction in deficit spending.
See if this excerpt from the Associated Press jogs your memory.
"Republicans are vowing to demonstrate the leadership they say President Clinton abdicated when he submitted in Congress what they believe is a spineless budget that sidesteps the tough choices needed to balance the budget.
The administration had hoped that Clinton's $1.6 trillion spending plan for 1996, with its middle class tax relief and avoidance of unpopular cuts in government programs, would be a political crowd pleaser.
But instead of widespread praise, Clinton's budget was drawing heavy criticism, not only from Republicans but from many Democrats as well.
Critics complained that the president should have gone after fast-growing benefit programs that account for almost half of federal spending. His failure to do that, they said, was the main reason that the deficits in his budget hover near $200 billion a year for the rest of the decade."
That was February 7, 1996.
As history would have it, the president was able to make those tough choices later on, when it became politically expedient. He trimmed welfare rolls and turned programs over to states in the form of block grants. (Remember what a bad idea block grants were?)
In his State of the Union speech, the president put the spotlight on a woman from Indianapolis who had been pulled off the welfare rolls and put to work.
As the applause rang, I wondered how many people remembered what a bad idea welfare to work was when the Republicans proposed it.
Remember?
The administration was against it. The rhetoric went something like this: "How can you take a single mother off welfare and put her to work? It's like pulling the plug on life support. Her childcare costs will eat up too much of her income for her to survive."
But alas, now the concept has been embraced and promoted by the administration. Why? Survey said it was a popular idea among the electorate.
Coupled with these modest measures of fiscal responsibility, a booming economy generated tax revenues beyond expectations, allowing the president to announce that the budget will be in surplus three years early.
Of course, top economic forecasters for both parties have been consistently wrong about revenue and its effect on the deficit, so all we can really do is hope for a continued robust economy.
But there is no question the budget is starting to look a little better, so what does the president do? He sends Congress somewhere between $90 billion and $150 billion in new spending. Hey, if there's any surplus, there's only one thing to do. Spend!
Then, in the same press conference, he challenges Republicans to "maintain our fiscal discipline."
But that's Bill Clinton.
On the one hand he seems to have adopted a conservative ideology toward the budget, taking the credit for balancing it.
On the other, he's proposing a batch of expensive new programs to woo voters.
In the history of American politics, there has been no better politician.
