US Presidential Politics in 2004: Part II. More Democrat Baggage

'Is Welfare Working?'

In his 1996 State of the Union address, Mr. Clinton declared that: "The era of big government is over". It was fine rhetoric, but its substance was much less than convincing. Democrats had often pledged to "end welfare as we know it", for example, and they proposed a plan replete with vague generalities, but they took no initiative to enact that plan when they controlled all three branches of government. In early 1995 the Republican controlled Congress approved a welfare reform bill that was very similar to the Clinton plan, but citing other issues of typical partisan disagreement, Mr. Clinton vetoed the legislation.

The Congress approved another welfare bill as part of the 1996 budget package. That bill also was vetoed. In August 1996 Congress approved a third welfare reform bill that limited benefits to five years over the course of the recipient's life and limited food stamps benefits to three months with the requirement that the recipient provide tangible evidence of an active job search. This radical but necessary alteration of the status quo was the version Mr. Clinton finally signed.

By 1996 the US welfare system was tremendous budgetary baggage. Transforming that system proved a very divisive struggle within the Democrats' leadership. The Democrats traditionally are the party of big government and a strong public sector. Mr. Clinton essentially stood alone to "support" the welfare system that would revise what had become a "way of life" for many of its recipients.

This internal struggle was expressed best by Senator Daschle at a press conference when he said: "The President will sign a bad bill. No, let me say that again. The President will veto, yes he will veto, a bad bill". It may have been a mere slip of the tongue, but it was a very revealing slip.

'Scandals, Scandals!'

As a matter of officialdom, the Clinton administration ended two and a half years ago. So why grapple with its tainted legacy again? Simple. The actions of a political party's last occupant of high office always present issues for the new contenders for that office to eschew or accept. The legacy of the former party leaders become the collective legacy of the party. Add to that reality the strange fact that Mrs. Clinton is now a US Senator and a potential future Presidential candidate. Therefore with the distance that time lapse allows, it is worthwhile to re-examine some of the deeds of that administration.

Go To Page: 1 2 3