J. Sheehan — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
The era of economic prosperity started long ago, in the Reagan administration, and really took off when the R's got a majority in Congress.. No way that we would have controlled budget deficits, reduced welfare, and kept tax hikes under control without a Republican majority. Clinton is the luckiest president in history in addition to all his other "firsts" (most of which are dubious or embarrasing).

Mack Wilson — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
It seems that most of the folks that seem to understand the economy are giving the credit to Reagan for our good economy. What has Clinton done to help anything. Clinton and Gore are liars. They would do well to say they had nothing to do with the economy.That way we could believe they are still lying so maybe they really did have something to do with the country being in good shape.

Elliott — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
The most lucky President alive, anybody with any knowledge of Clinton's policy's knows that he didn't do anything!

frank mauran — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
the republican congress. the economy was starting to lose momentum in 1994 until the republican congresswas elected and passed the tax cuts and imposed a balanced budget.

John Wright — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
About the only thing that Clitoon can legitimately take credit for is the declining teenage birthrate. By going oral only (because as Paul's first letter to Penthouse states "oral sex isn't sex" - Rush Limbaugh), he probably reduced illegitimate pregnancies by a few hundred. I think he may have had himself nuetered also which helps reduce illegtimacy.

sterling rome — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
Republicans like to credit the majority in Congress for contributing to the economy, and in some ways this is correct. However, the reality is that, much like the industrial revolution, buisness and technology have created a momentum that feeds on itself. It is the power of a free-market economy in action and a stunning reminder as to why (despite the whining of those of the left) we are a capitalist society. Republicans embrace this philosophy and understand the significance of supply-side economics. Thus, Republicans and their constituents are just as happy to take no credit and get out of the way.

Bill Clinton takes credit for an economy he cannot EXPLAIN, not to mention foster. He and his party stand for the exact principles that have led to the historic recessions in our history, and he fought desperately for a huge tax increase, and against a balanced budget amendment. Yet, in the end, he is all things to all people - depending on the audience.

Like most of us, I gladly take the great economic times as they benefit all of us. But I'll admit there is a secret part of me that would have loved to see his approval ratings had he inherited Jimmy Carter's economy, rather than Ronald Reagan's.

John Chiappetta — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
Uhm, that would be all the new economy hard-producing giants (and not so giant) who've given american's a real reason to believe. We never been so busy and so productive - no thanks to Democrat or Republican. They continue to look for ways to "deacrease the weath factor" and "stabalize the economy" i.e we're too productive and making too much money! As one fictional character once said...(paraphrase) Just get out of my way and let me do what i do best....or would that be considered a "risky scheme?"

Joel Hood — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
Exactly what action did the "slick one" take that gave us this great prosperity of the 1990's? I know Democrats keep referring back to his 1993 budget package, but ...

* Wasn't much of this reversed a year later? If his tax increase in the 1993 budget package was so successful, why wasn't the Bush tax increase successful too.

* The DEMs keep talking about Bill and Al bringing on these great economic times. Are they referring to Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan? Where did all the capital come from that fueled the technology boom that drove productivity through the roof - could it have anything to do with marginal tax rates dropping from 70% to 28% in the late 1980's? I forget - who appointed Alan Greenspan?

* Aren't all spending bills initiated in the House? How many years did the DEMS control the House? When was the first balanced budget realized and who had the majority in the House at that time?

* Wasn't much of the spending cuts during the 1990's taken from the military budget? How were these cuts possible - perhaps the end of the cold war? And, under who's watch did the cold war come to an end?

Howard Goodman — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
The Clinton economy is the result of the market oriented policies of the Regean administration. While the Democrats were begging for money to bail out the unions in the Rust Belt and their industrial era employers, the Regean people avoided that stupidity. The Europeans did follow the Democrats and their economies, after 15 years of double digit unemployment and stagnation, are now beginning to recover.

The Clinton economy is now yielding skyrocketing junk bond defaults and an impending Banking crisis. Dodgy loans in the Banking sector are on the rise and could jeopardize the liquidity needed for further expansion. But that is the plan. Bush will win the Presidency only to be confronted with a Banking crisis and liquidity crisis. This recession will destroy the conservative party to the benefit of the socialists and the Democrats will sweep the election of 2002 and 2004. It will be the Bush recession and the offical start of the Socialist one world government our Kleptocracy has been implementing for the last 50 years.

Good luck!

Dennis Pavluk — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
If Clinton is responsable for this robust economy, than a spoon is responsable for making Rosie fat...

Charles Van Eaton — posted 8/18/00 10:20 a.m.
BEA data from the Department of Commerce show the economy expanding at a 3.8% annual rate from June, 1991-- a year-ane-a-half before Clinton entered office. With the passage of the tax increase in 1993, Clinton pushed growth down to about 2.8%. Growth did not begin to accelerate until 1995, after Clinton had been dashed in the 1994 campaign. Both on theoretical and empirical grounds, there is no way Clinton can honestly claim that his policies have given us the economy we now enjoy. Of course, the operative word is "honestly." But that's not in Clinton's lexicon.

W. G. Matthews — posted 8/18/00 10:10 a.m.
Our present economic boom is a continuation of 220 months of growth started by the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan. He inherited double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment when he took office. There was a book writen by Myron Kandel (of CNN) titled 'How to Cash in on the Coming Stock Market Boom'. It was writen in 1982. Could Kandel foresee the election of Clinton? I don't think so. He could understand the effect Reagan's policies would have on the country's growth and economy.

Manny Vergara — posted 8/18/00 10:10 a.m.
Bill Gates is about 70 billion times more responsible than Bill Clinton for the current strength of the economy. Is it possible that there has ever been anyone more arrogant than Clinton? How does anyone listen to such astonishing verbal diarrhea and not have an uncontrollable urge to upchuck. If I had to imagine the worse form of torture it would be to have to listen to a complete Clinton speech with my eyes taped open and my hands bound so that I couldn't plug up my ears. January can't come soon enough.

Darin Curtis — posted 8/18/00 10:05 a.m.
Indeed, things are better than they were eight years ago. The changes, however, did not begin eight years ago. Seems to me, the Clinton administration predicted $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see AFTER passing the largest tax increase in history. So much for his program. A quick study in national economics- the CONGRESS writes the checks, not the President. The deficit was the result of 40 years of democratic congressional check writing. The deficit itself, started to come down 5-6 years ago, not eight years ago. Now, I wonder what happened 6 years ago? Oh yeah, now I remember, fiscally responsible people took over the United States congress. Nice try democrats. The only hope you have to win is to supply misinformation to the ignorant. Those of us who can actually function without "big brother" looking over our shoulder know better.

John den Dulk — posted 8/18/00 10:05 a.m.
Jimmy Carter deserves more positive credit than Clinton-Gore. He signed off on the Ed Zschau initiated capital gains reduction which was the most important politico-governmental impetus to the infotech industry, and he appointed Paul Volker to chair the fed, beginning a period of sound money policies which has continued to the present.

The current strong economy really began in 1982 when the Reagan-Bush economic policies of deregulation and lower taxes began to take effect. Blame for the huge deficits of this era belongs to the Demo congress. In nominal dollars, defense spending went up about $100 billion per year under Reagan, and domestic spending about $400 billion, due to the rapacious apetites of the pork barrel legions of Tip O'Neill. They successfully laid the blame at the feet of President Reagan, with the complicity of the major Media. If Clinton-Gore have had any effect on the current situation aside from continuing the policies of their predecessors, aside from failing to bring us Socialized Medicine, it is in electing a GOP House and Senate. Clinton's "finest hour" came in the game of chicken he played with the GOP congress over the issue of balancing the budget. He said it could not happen by 2002. Two years later, when the budget came into balance, he took the credit. He shouldn't have it both ways, but we never hear the stupid party point any of this out.

joe wilson — posted 8/18/00 10:05 a.m.
what rbust economy? the economy was growing at over four percent when clinton and gore took office and its growing at just over four percent now. the republican controlled house and senate have held democrat spending down and that has led to lower borrowing and lower interrest rates. the republican control was faught by all democrats in both houses. bottom line -- democrats did not improve it -- republicans did.

Wayne H. Nunn — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush deserve the credit -- not Clinton! The only credit I can give our draft-dodging president is that he retained Greenspan!

Bill Dunn — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
Clinton takes office and his own party rejects his attempt to raise taxes and nationalize health care (too risky, huh Al?), republicans win congress and the economy takes off - (look at the numbers)... nuf said.

Ed Buell — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
Typical. Clinton and Gore haven't done a thing and you'd think listening to them that the world would stop turning if you stopped listening to them for one moment.

I really don't understand why the average person doesn't get it. Maybe there are just a lot of really stupid people in the country. I hope not. But... Maybe average is a lot lower than we think.

Larry Carr — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
The only thing that I can think of that Clinton actually did to help the economy was to shift the national debt to short term, thereby lowering interest costs to the government. But talk about a risky scheme. What if he hadn't been the beneficiary of Regan's tax cuts, and that debt had started to come due at every increasing rates?

Steven Pierce — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
Reagan. Deregulation started under Carter, and then was done right under Reagan. The deregulation I believe has a lot to do with the dynamic growth of the pharmacutical and technology industries, the two main industries that have propelled the economy for the last 18 years. Reagan also is the only president since Kennedy to have an economic plan(Lower taxes, sound fiscal policy). What has Clinton done other than reappoint Greenspan and shorten maturity on Federal debt instruments(there's a risky scheme{it worked}).

The other industry that has propelled the economy was the defense industry in the 80s. Reagan mainly takes hits for the defense build up, but any astute observer realizes we will continue to reap the benefits of Reagan's skillful administration and it's victory in the Cold War for many years to come. Also see paragraph one. The technology industry as a whole has been powering the economy and the stock market almost by itself for a decade.

The technolgy industry probably owes much of it's rapid expansion to Reagan's defense spending of the 80s and the new technologies developed. Push the analogy a little further and we could conclude that millions of fat 401k accounts can thank Reagan and the deficit spending policies of the 80s.

I think once and a while even National Review forgets to quote a Reagan statement of the early 80s that was laughed and scoffed at by the media and Democrats. What was the Reagan quote? "The economy can grow the government deficits away." Unequivacally true. Not the Republican sweep of '94 or any Clintonian policy. Simple economic growth combined with lower interest rates.

Reagan deserves the credit. I can't think of any economic policy of Clinton's. Add to that the fact that the Economy in 92 grew faster than 93, 49 or 95 and I think it's obvious the credit belongs to Reagan(Plus Kemp and Paul Volcker).

Ruth Faust — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
Ronald Reagan deserves the credit for the economy. Without him, we would never be as well off as we are now.

Irv Emerson — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
I give Ronald Reagan credit for the economy, for tax cuts that he made. I give working people credit for the economy, it's their money making it go. And last, I give the Republican Congress credit for the economy, after all they stopped alot of Clinton-Gore proposals that were very "risky schemes". That also stopped the biggest attemp of a government takeover in our history, Hillary's "sick" plan. On another subject, I give Clinton credit for a lower count of teens being pregant (it not really but he said it was) because with the help of Monica and while using our White House, he taught them something new about sex (and the count on that with teens is up).

Eric Goedde — posted 8/18/00 10:00 a.m.
Clinton deserves nothing, but a nice long vacation (preferably with his wife) out of the public eye. Say 10 years. Ronald Reagan deserve the credit for our economy. Back in the 80's when he let up on Corporate America, the companies responded by putting more money into Research and Development. We are now reaping the benefits of those corporate tax breaks of the 80's.

rich — posted 8/17/00 9:35 a.m.
The American people. Government does not create jobs. Free enterprise does. This mantra of 22 million new jobs is interesting. How many NEW jobs are Created every year just thru natural demographics?

Doc — posted 8/17/00 9:35 a.m.
In Feb 2000, Algore bragged that the current administration had created the longest sustained period of growth in American history, 108 months. If he remembered his math as well as he does all of that Harvard leftist BS, he could cipher that the Devious Duo had only been in office 87 months at that time. The Clinton "economic package" was initiated some six months after taking office, and consisted of a large retroactive tax increase. I guess that's why they can lay claim to the "Clinton boom" starting on day one of their tenure. In actuality. the rate of economic growth dropped from 4% to 2.6% from 1993 to 1995 and the stock market only rose from 3200 to 3800. The election of a Republican majority to the House and Senate, forced Clinton to accept welfare reform and a balanced budget(both of which he now takes credit for) that so encouraged investors. The retention of Alan Greenspan (a Reagan appointee) and the entrepeneurial genius of the American people freed by the policies of Ronald Reagan sent the market to 11,000 and created trillions of dollars of new wealth. This new wealth along with the end of the cold war, welfare reform, the 50% increase in capital gains revenue after a tax cut, and puting the brakes on Democratic spending are responsible for the current surplus, not Bill Clinton or Algore.

GLORIA KAVANAUGH — posted 8/17/00 9:35 a.m.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE U.S. HAS A GREAT OR ROBUST ECONOMY. THIS ECONOMY IS AN ECONOMY WHERE THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE WORKING POOR GET POORER. IF WE HAD HAD A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT THE LAST 4 OR 8 YEARS, WE WOULD BE HEARING ON THE NEWS EVERY DAY AND NIGHT ABOUT HOW THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER, HOW THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DISAPPEARING AND BEING TAXED UNMERCIFULLY, AND HOW THE POOR ARE MORE HOPELESS THAN EVER. I AM ONE OF THE WORKING POOR. I WORK HARDER THAN I DID 8 YEARS AGO AND HAVE LESS TO SHOW FOR IT. I HAVE NO HOPE OF EVER DOING MORE THAN "EXIST" UNDER CLINTONOMICS. NO VACATIONS FOR ME. NO AFFORDABLE HEATH CARE FOR ME. NO NEW CLOTHES OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR ME. (THANK GOD FOR RUMMAGE SALES AND RESALE SHOPS). I WISH THE NEWS MEDIA WOULD WAKE UP AND TELL THE REAL TRUTH!!!

Chuck Livingston — posted 8/17/00 9:35 a.m.
What economic policy? For eight years, next January 20th, we've had Alan Greenspan and a handsome fellow named Rubin, or Rube, or whatever. Clintonism is simply tax/spend, tax/spend, tax/spend in an ever upward spiral. Twice in the last thirty years the economy has seen unprecedented, even explosive growth -- both the result of major tax cuts, in 1963 by Kennedy and in 1983 by Reagan. The effects of the latter, delayed for a time while it overcame an economy in shambles, is still with us. The only reason that Clinton's 1993 tax increase didn't stop the growth dead was a 1994 majority of Congress being won by Republicans -- making professional bureaucrats think twice about their wasteful,self aggrandizing habit of "budget burning. Our economy wil do just fine, thank you very much, if taxes are lowered to nonconfiscatory levels and government gets out of the way, including the Federal Reserve.

pelican — posted 8/17/00 9:35 a.m.
Clinton claiming credit for America's robust economy is the equivalent of Willie Sutton claiming credit for America's robust banks.

Joe Schembrie — posted 8/17/00 9:35 a.m.
Clintonomics: When Good Things Happen to Bad Presidents. It's basically what happens when an egocentric with bad ideas is unable to implement his policies, and life manages to go on without him. You realize that Clinton could have been replaced with one of those bobbing-bird toys that drinks water from a cup, and the economy would have functioned just as well.

Maybe better; the bird wouldn't make speeches that frighten the stock market. Clintonomics is confirmation of Jefferson's adage, "Government governs best which governs least." A man unable to govern himself has also proven unable to govern America. And while leadership has been sorely missed in some areas, the economy overall hasn't done so badly under neglect.

Who can we truly thank for our robust economy? The list is long: For ending the business cycle (misnamed, it should be called the government cycle), we can thank Milton Friedman and monetary policy as implemented by Alan Greenspan.

We can thank the framers of the Constitution for dividing powers so that an activist President can't destroy the economy without the help of Congress.

We can thank Congress for not helping Clinton destroy the economy. We can thank Reagan for his tax cuts, which are still providing the investment capital that spurs economic growth.

We can thank working Americans, who give muscle and bone to the economic infrastructure.

We can thank the great scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs who have given us the innovations that multiply the productivity of Americans many times over that of equally hard-working Chinese, and have literally lifted us from the mud to the stars (or, at least, to the Moon and Mars). And finally, we can thank God . . . but not in the public square . . . unless you're Joe Lieberman.

Dick Garman — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
The Reagan Administration and the 104th & 106th Congress. When Reagan took office in 1981, interest rates were over 20% and inflation and unemployment were high. When he left office, interest rates were single digits, inflation was undercontrol, and just about everyone who wanted to work, could find work. The 104th Congress forced the Clinton administration into a balanced budget, welfare reform, and worked to repeal the tax increase of 1993 and other reducing other taxes. They were unsuccessful in those efforts, but they were sucessful in not allowing another tax increase. The 106th Congress worked to reduce and repeal the marriage penalty, death tax, and reduce capital gains taxes, thereby helping to keep investments in technology high and keeping our economy rolling. If you want to see the economy take another step forward, Tort Reform!!!

William Blundon — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
At its core, Clintonomics is five things:
- Deregulation and business reengineering that began in the mid-1980s
- Productivity gains driven by technology innovation
- Sound money driven by the Fed
- Globalization and freer trade driven by the Republicans and Clinton against the wishes of the Democrats
- The hard work, risk-taking and entrepreneurship of the American people

Give Clinton credit for selectively supporting the Republican economic agenda. Otherwise, he has contributed most by doing nothing. Reagan, Greenspan, Rubin and a host of hardworking Americans deserve the credit.

Jim Covello — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
Bill Clinton is the luckiest man in the world! Our prosperity started with the tax cuts of the Reagan administration.Tax rates were at an astounding 75 %,Reagan reduced those rates to 28%. This reduction of tax rates inspired entrepreneurial investment,i.e.:Microsoft.Technological innovations of the 1980's not only created jobs but also created a high degree of efficiency in industry worldwide.Budget deficits created by the Cold War and irrational spending by a Democrat congress during this period had the effect of masking what would soon be an unprecedented economic boon.A minor recession would come first. However in 1994 a Republican congress would be voted in for the first time in many years,tax cuts,welfare reform and budget cuts were signed into law by a reluctant president.We are now reaping the rewards of Ronald Reagans early philosophies and a latter Republican congress.

Jim Covello — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
Bill Clinton is the luckiest man in the world! Our prosperity started with the tax cuts of the Reagan administration.Tax rates were at an astounding 75 %,Reagan reduced those rates to 28%. This reduction of tax rates inspired entrepreneurial investment,i.e.:Microsoft.Technological innovations of the 1980's not only created jobs but also created a high degree of efficiency in industry worldwide.Budget deficits created by the Cold War and irrational spending by a Democrat congress during this period had the effect of masking what would soon be an unprecedented economic boon.A minor recession would come first. However in 1994 a Republican congress would be voted in for the first time in many years,tax cuts,welfare reform and budget cuts were signed into law by a reluctant president.We are now reaping the rewards of Ronald Reagans early philosophies and a latter Republican congress.

Peter Fahnestock — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
Two words: Republican congress.

Jerry Aubel — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
Here's who deserves the credit: 1)The American people and Capitalism 2) The Congress of the US 3) The Fed (even touhg I believe Mr. G. has overreacted) Clinton and his crowd are socialists, pure and simple, and deserve only credit for NOT screwing up.

sheilah pepper — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
Remember all those businesses that went under in Jimmy Carter's time? Interest rates soaring from 10 percent to 21 percent? Doesn't anyone remember that the Democratic congress blocked Reagan's program cuts at every turn? Doesn't anyone remember that it was the 1994 Republican majority that forced the president into balancing the budget. Felix Dershinsky of KGB fame and Goebbels in the 1930s perfected the big lie technique. Their inheritors are in Los Angeles spinning it again. And it won't work. Also, the fake emoting, the tears and whining are becoming too much to take. These folks are like proessional "miserables." And another assinine statement from a movie starlet via an established network lightweight will bring out the barf bag. S. Pepper, Mineola, Texas

A.C. Johnson — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
The real credit for turning the economy around goes to Ronald Reagan, who could successfully communicate to Americans the value and importance of supply side economics, and who could tap into the fundamental belief that Americans should be allowed to keep what they work for by the sweat of their brow. He changed the terms of the debate, and the importance of this can't be underestimated. Reagan is the main reason we are pushing a 20-year span of prosperity and growth. The only intelligent things Clinton has done is to have Rubin be Treasury secretary, and reappoint Greenspan. Rubin is competent, but also a hypocrite, because for all his wealth obtained via a free market, he has aligned himself with an administration of statists, and tax and regulation increasers.

D Stewart — posted 8/16/00 3:40 p.m.
Clintonomics is a matter of a tax increase, followed by implementation of Republican vision--because Clinton's own few policy initiatives crashed and burned, and along with them so did what little economic vision he ever had. After passing his tax increase--the entirety of his policy, since there was no systematic reform of anything in Clinton's tax bill of 1993--Clinton's signal achievements were: losing on HillaryCare, renominating Greenspan, letting the Republicans help him pass the Republican NAFTA, letting the Republicans implement welfare reform, and letting the Republicans balance the budget. The most telling things about the Clinton economic "policy": His description of his accomplishments in economics. Other than the blatantly false--"I passed welfare reform; I passed a balance budget; I passed NAFTA"--his brags are the Family Leave Act, the tax increase, and machine gunning the tax code full of loopholes (or "targeted tax cuts," as he calls them). Now, there's a formula for prosperity: Tax people more for the time they're working for pay; encourage them to take time off without pay; and force them to take all their time trying to rearrange budgets to match the tax code.

don flynn — posted 8/16/00 12:40 p.m.
Clinton did nothing in his first two years even though he had a democrat house of reps. A republican house was elected in 1994 proposed a 10 point program,8 of which they passed including, welfare reform , a balanced budget, cutting government spending, etc. The slickmeister then appropiated all as his own after fighting, vacilating, and vetoing. These all contributed as did a savings of 100bill ayear savings because ,thanks to Ron Regan there is no more soviet union war to fight and also thanks to him there has been much $$$ invested in technology etc because he freed up $$$ with his tax decreases and finally Bill Gates and the rest of american entrapeners deserve an abundance of credit. So although the economy is great it's beginnings go back to Reagan and later to the republican congress elected in 1994.

Marvin D. Camp, Jr. — posted 8/16/00 12:40 p.m.
My memory is too good to give Clinton and the spendthrift Democrats credit for any economic upturns. Through out the Reagan and Bush administrations the Democratic Congress continued to spend my (our) money with total abandon. To compare them to drunken sailors on leave would be to demean the Navy unduly. Deficits have been in the bloodstream of the Democrats for decades. Manipulation of tax codes and spending for the purpose of maintaining themselves in power has long been their driving force in legislation, they then SAY that such programs are for such and such a constituency whether it has the desired effect or not. If not, it was the fault of Republicans or not enough was spent. With the Democratic party press wing in control of most media outlets only those who look beyond spin at facts and who do remember the past as it was before revisionism took hold will be able to see the truth: The Democrats would put us back on the road to insolvency as fast as they can cash illegal contribution checks.

TNARG — posted 8/16/00 12:40 p.m.
Thank God for the republican house and senate as well as the actions taken by them and their forbares. The only thing clinton was rtealy good at is THE BIG LIE as propagated by no other than Adolf. It has been like reliving what I went through and had to fight against so this character could eventually bring disgrace to the office and make him the laughing king pin of the world. Thank god for Bill Gates and others like him who have and are making the economy great.

Dan McCall — posted 8/16/00 12:40 p.m.
Bill Clinton deserves credit for America's current economic growth like a tumor deserves credit for helping a child grow. Is there an internet parvenu out there that can show in any way how Clinton helped the information age along? Is there a manufacturing CEO that could sit down in front of me with a cup of coffee and explain how Clinton—the apparent wunderkind from Arkansas—could possibly be responsible for growing productivity? Of course not!

You will here liberals constantly discredit Reagan’s influence on the economy in the eighties. Either they fault him with a litany of supposed economic problems, or if they are a tid more sophisticated, will state that Presidents really have a very limited effect on the behemoth American economy. There may be some truth to the latter. As a conservative I would like to believe that ours is an economy that is hearty enough to endure a politician like Clinton for at least a while, but liberals miss the truth of how presidents can positively contribute to economic growth—by stopping the government from forcing the malinvestment of American productivity. Reagan believed this inherently, and this is why we can sit down a discuss the merits of Reagan’s contribution to American economic growth.