The Clinton Record!!

[PDXWoman]

Hi everyone! :hi: I'm new, and I thought we need a reminder of some of the things the last democratic Prez has done. Here are a couple of my favorites. I'd love you to pick yours.

{Snip}

MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK BETTER AND COST LESS
Already cut the Federal Workforce by over 200,000 -- on the way to lowest level in 30 years.
Abolishing 16,000 pages of obsolete regulations and rewriting 31,000 more pages.
$58 billion in savings are already in the bank. $46 billion in savings are still to come.
Over 180 new recommendations will save $70 billion. Eliminated 284 federal advisory committees.
Developed government-wide Customer Service Standards for the first time.
Appointed the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history.
Signed the most important federal procurement act ever to streamline government purchasing.
Reformed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to protect 8.5 million pensions.
Signed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, March 22, 1995

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

[jrthin]

1. Fine. But what have they

done for us lately. My tally adds up to nada, unless you count how they have sidled up to *, and making it possible for us to lose more and more dems in congress and the senate.

[PDXWoman]

2. Have Faith in our party.

The clintons know what they're doing lets support them in whole right now for the greater good of our party. BTW...Did you pick a favorite?

[mattclearing]

5. Hmmm...

You should start a club with Aspberger.

[juajen]

29. I could be in that club, also

The Clintons did a lot of things very, very well. I salute them and will support Hillary for Pres. if she runs.

[blm]

7. I wonder if Clinton regrets not allowing BCCI to be further examined?

After all, the constant bad news about IranContra and BCCI helped defeat Bush1 in 1992. Then Clinton wouldn't allow BCCI story to be examined more closely by exposing all the documents that Kerry had requested from Bush1 that were withheld.

Also, the BFEE was able to grow and STRENGTHEN during Clinton's terms in ways they couldn't have if their level of criminality had been more fully aired when the opportunity presented itself in 1993.

I know Greenspan warned Clinton that if the full extent of BCCI was allowed to be exposed, it would collapse the world economy, but, in retrospect, the world could have survived a few iears of economic instability better than being trampled on by an ENORMOUS criminal regime like the Bush2 administration. Many of the characters running the show today should have been jailed and their crimes against the Constitution told in 4 inch headlines so the American public could NOT be fooled again.

BCCI was about the funding of terrorism and global unrest by international financiers and sanctioned by government operatives. If it had been exposed more fully as Kerry wished, would 9-11 have happened?

I wonder if Clinton regrets allowing the best opportunity to put these thugs in the history books AS criminals, fascists and funders of global terrorism, pass by him.

Anyone have any further insight to explain what happened in 92 and 93? Especially based on all that's happened since?

[mattclearing]

31. I don't know anymore.

I used to have a lot of faith in Bill Clinton, particularly when he was in the White House.

Lately though it seems like he's more sympathetic to the other side. He's first to tell us what's wrong with Democrats, first to tell us that Roberts is a great guy who is entitled to his belief in the destruction of civil rights in America, etc.

Hard to believe he actually went on tour with GHWB.

[jrthin]

10. Hmmm. Just in case

you were wondering, we have lost congress and the senate under Clinton's approach. As I've said before, Clinton is an excellent politician, for himself. For our party though, he's a train wreck.

[Clark2008]

40. Bill did a lot of great things for the country

Hillary... eh... not so much.

I mean, I guess she's doing OK for New Yorkers, but she won't break the 40 percent margin in any red state in a general election.

WE HAVE TO FLIP SOME RED STATES!

[Sparkman]

3. Kept neocons at bay/ran highest budget SURPLUS/Told fewest lies/earned res

pect of the world/kept terrorism in check and off our shores/permitted military recruiters to be truthful/contained torture & rendition policy from creeping into the U.S./promoted constant 4% stock market gains/maintained China yuan currency pegged to U.S. dollar/World OIL price inflation LOW & w/o spilling blood of HUNDREDs of THOUSANDs of innocent people.
Damn he looks good TODAY.

[PDXWoman]

4. Yes.

Ahhh those were the days. I miss the big Dawg.

[Gyre]

6. Alert: Clinton infidelity hands WH to republicans!

Oh, I guess you just forgot about that one.:(

Gyre

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LSK]

12. PDXWoman, you should know that there is an internal battle here

The Clintons represent the moderates and the DLC - Democratic Leadership Council, and seeing as how poorly Democrats have done in the past dozen years or so, a lot of people are not happy with the DLC or the Clintons. Especially with Hillary drifting to the center and Bill hanging out with Bush Sr.

A lot of people think some democrats try to be republican-lite and that strategy is a loosing strategy. At least in my view. For example, Kerry could never fully explain his vote for the war in Iraq and that turned off a lot of people.

[PDXWoman]

13. Yes, I know.

I've been a lurker here on DU for 2 years now. We're making a mistake veering way out to the left tho.

[Darranar]

19. "veering way out to the left"...

Are you talking about DU or the Democratic Party?

[PDXWoman]

20. DU is very important to the democratic party.

So.. I guess I'm talkimg about both. The republicans stick their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalala when confronted with all of this administrations horrid errors. It works! We should do the same. A democrat can do no wrong.

Lalalalala

[Darranar]

24. So how exactly does DU "veer to the left" too much?

Do you have any examples?

And how does DU veering to the left have the slightest to do with the policy positions of the Democratic Party?

[Time for change]

21. Can you be more specific about how we're making a mistake by

"veering way out to the left"?

[PDXWoman]

25. One example...

If you read DU long enough you could swear that all dems are atheist, which is not the case. Freedom of religion includes Christians and we've done way too much Christian bashing here. Big mistake on our part.

No I'm not a Christian.

[Darranar]

28. There is a lot of fundamentalist bashing and a lot of atheism...

but the actual Christian-bashing seems mostly limited to the non-political debates of atheism versus theism, which has next to nothing to do with leftist policy and analysis.

[blm]

34. I'll back you up 100% on that one. DU doesn't bash Christians - they go

after the FUNDAMENTALISTS and extremists who claim to represent Christianity falsely.

In fact, we readily support REAL Christians who apply their faith in the real world - like Dennis Kucinich.

That's a HUGE difference.

[Time for change]

43. Great point

There are hypocrites from all religions (and that's not to say that atheists can't be hypocrites as well), who in reality are less religious than a lot of atheists. They use their religion to further their anti-religious agenda, such as making wealthy wealthier at the expense of the poor.

Bashing those kinds of people probably IS a leftist trait, but I see nothing wrong with it.

[Time for change]

42. I don't really think of Christian bashing as "leftist"

Probably some people on the DU, but certainly not most, do too much bashing of all sorts of people, including fellow Democrats like John Kerry. When those people bash whole groups of people, like Christians for example, it's not good because it indicates a certain degree of intolerance, which we on DU like to think that we are against. But I don't believe that that would be considering "veering to the left".

[Eloriel]

63. Forgive me, but

with 56 whole posts to your name, I'm not all that sure you have a real good feel for what DU is all about. Even if you've been lurking for a while, it's still not really that easy to peg DU and DUers. Some days I spend hours and hours and hours here -- mostly in 3 forums (GD, GDP and LBN) and STILL don't get to read everything, which means I'm not getting the full picture.

I also don't think Christians are all that victimized, either here or in broader society. They ARE part of the Dominant Culture, and while we live in a secular society, there's still an awful lot that is bent their direction. As for as DU is concerned, religious bigotry is no longer tolerated, so if you see "Christian bashing" you should alert on it. I do.

But do bear in mind that CRITICISM of a religion's officila teachings is not "bashing." So make sure you sort that part of it out for yourself.

Edited to add: Oh, and about Clinton? You're in for a rather rude awakening, I'm afraid. Yeah, he did a lot of good. But he was far from perfect and he did some bad too. Lately, his record is increasingly questionable in my mind -- e.g., speaking positively about Roberts is NOT a particularly helpful things. Trying to run the DNC's primaries and DNC chairmanship elections also isn't in any way appropriate in my book. And I'm sick of the "legacy" he gave us in the DLC, which has been nothing but devastation for the Democratic Party since before he left office if not before that.

YMMV, of course, but you should stick around, learn a little more about him (and the Senator) and see if you don't come away thinking maybe there's some clay in those feet after all.

[madfloridian]

44. We are not going to allow the party to keep "veering" to the right.

We don't have to veer to the left....just back to the middle.

[blm]

16. Kerry fully explained IWR for anyone with half a brain.

Too many chose to blame IWR for the invasion of Iraq, when Bush invaded Iraq DESPITE the guidelines of the IWR.

Rove-driven media refused to acknowledge that Bush did not ADHERE to IWR or implement it honestly.

Instead, they muddied the waters by repeating ad nauseum that Bush invaded Iraq BECAUSE of the IWR.

[Darranar]

17. Since Bush legitimized his invasion of Iraq with IWR...

and since the guidelines IWR offered were vague enough that he could ignore them, yes, it was a vote for war, pure and simple.

[blm]

23. That's sad. Bush was NOT adhering to IWR when he was discrediting Blix

and the weapons inspections,

Bush was NOT adhering to IWR honestly when he sent his OFFICIAL letter to congress that after weapons inspections he determined that war was necessary.

If Dems were smart they would pick up on Bonifaz' line of reasoning and use IWR to IMPEACH Bush.

Instead too many fall into Rove's trap that IWR gave Bush all the power he needed to invade Iraq.

Bush had to lie every step of the way after the NEEDED goal of IWR - weapons inspections - were proving that war was unnecessary.

[Darranar]

26. You are missing the point. I did not claim that Bush adhered to IRW. n/t

[blm]

27. You don't realize the real-life effect of blaming the IWR instead of

pointing out how Bush went to war DESPITE the guidelines of the IWR.

Imagine if Dems put their energy into pointing out the truth instead of feeding the LIE that IWR is responsible for the Iraq war.

When Dems put ANY energy into blaming IWR, what good is accomplished? Is truth served at ALL?

[Darranar]

30. The "real-life effect"...

of being "pro-war but not pro-war" is sounding ludicrous.

IWR gave Bush the power to go to war without re-consulting Congress. Since those guidelines were unenforceable, they were meaningless.

[blm]

33. Gee...let Bush OFF THE HOOK...repeatedly.

You really don't understand that you let Rove spin IWR into the force behind the invasion, instead of Bush LYING EVERY STEP OF THE WAY to subvert the intent of the IWR.

The bottom line result is the same - You let Bush off the hook when you blame IWR.

IWR should have been touted as a way to AVOID war as it would have done if an honest president was in charge.

When Dems fail to make that distinction, Bush wins the spin.

[Darranar]

36. Of course the Bush Administration is largely responsible for the war...

but Congress allowed them to do it.

Most of those in Congress backed the war, and most of them still do.

[blm]

46. Bush was going in w/without congress based on the original 1991 UN res.

That actually would have been a more solid legal leg for them to stand on, but, they wanted the opportunity to divide the Dems party before the 2002 election and the Dem primaries.

They knew they could count on the media to accomodate them.

[Darranar]

47. Congress still had to vote for intervention. n/t

[blm]

50. Not to enforce the UN resolution that was still operable until

the UN expired it.

[Sparkman]

35. Dems signing the IWR can honestly claim they didn't know PNAC and

the 2000 Office of Special Plans had mapped the Invasion of Iraq, by those neocons, WITH NO REQUIREMENT OF ANY CONGRESSIONAL "approval"!
Get off criticizing Kerry & other Dems for not realizing the LEVEL OF DECEIT AND TREASON that Cheny, Rummy, Wolfopits & Bush had commited to for the sake of THEIR CORPORATE CONSPIRATORS. AND comparing this group to inconstructed Fascists is feckless. THEY IGNORED THE 1200 INSPECTORS, HANS BLIX, SCOTT RIDDER & BRITISH INTEL to lie about Iraq's threat level, so what makes us surmise the IWR had ANY meaning?

[LSK]

37. the part that killed Kerry

Was after a year of not finding WMD in Iraq, Kerry was asked if he'd vote the same and Kerry said he would. Now if that isnt republican-lite and offering the anti-war crowd no alternatives, I dont know what is.

Also how is it possible that Howard Dean was able to see thru all the BS from the start?

I supported Kerry in the Gen election but I never liked having to explain a COMPLEX issue like his IWR vote. I'll even go so far as admit that the Downing Street Minutes prove that Bush was decieving everyone who voted for IWR, but I still dont like that they didnt have the common sense in the 1st place.

Or in other words, it was easy ammo for the Republicans to just say that Kerry voted for the war and that was enough to fool a lot of people.

[blm]

45. Dean was for Biden-Lugar version of IWR which was almost the same

thing - difference being that B-L required the letter for congress was to be sent at the start of the war instead of within 48hrs as required in IWR.

They were BOTH against Bush starting the war without allowing weapons inspections to first do what they were meant to do - prove whether or not an invasion was needed.

If you have any doubt that even Dean believed WMDs may be found, then I suggest you look up his statement released the night war began.

The truth is that the media exaggerated Dem positions - all of them, just as Rove wanted. Dean was spun into the angry, antiwar candidate and Kerry a warmonger to divide the Dem party. Sadly, both their campaign teams allowed the exaggeration of their differences which benefitted ONE person - Bush.

[Eloriel]

64. You raise an important point

And I must've missed the firestorm Kerry initiated when Bush did that:

Too many chose to blame IWR for the invasion of Iraq, when Bush invaded Iraq DESPITE the guidelines of the IWR.

Have you got some links to his press conferences, official statements, etc., when Bush invaded? Maybe I've misjudged the guy....

(unlikely, IMO, but -- well, we'll see.)

[blm]

73. If you're really interested in the point, check out Bonifaz' testimony on

DSM when he explained how Bush was in violation of the IWR when he invaded which should be an impeachable offense.

There were several threads here at the time of Conyers' hearing. But, it's a better bet to get the transcript of the hearing from whichever site has it - probably Conyers' or AfterDowningStreet, maybe downingstreetmemo.

I have a 4yo pulling at me to get to a playdate, so.....

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LandOLincoln]

9. Gee, and all this time I thought it was

the Supreme Court which "handed the WH to republicans!" Silly me...

[nyhuskyfan]

49. Oops. Didn't read all the way through the thread...

I see my response was already taken!

[nyhuskyfan]

48. You have Clinton confused with the Supreme Court

Honest mistake, He did go to law school.

[jonnyblitz]

51. he handed congress to the republicans in the 90's

he is the reason they gained majorities and took over due to the scandals , many believe...this obviously happened before the 2000 election when the Supreme Court came into play.

[LandOLincoln]

52. Sorry, but "they" took over the Congress in 1994

mostly thanks to Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America--which contract of course turned out to be a contract ON America.

The trumped up Monicagate "scandal" was in 1998.

[aspberger]

53. Clinton protected his privacy

Repukes were more concerned about Clinton's penis than running the country and Clinton still receives the blame for the repuke voyeurism. What gets me is the lack of support for Clinton on this issue. Delving into people's private sex life is odious and disgusting.

To attempt to use blackmail against the POTUS is seditious and Clinton stood up against sexually neurotic seditious repukes. Why can't anyone see this?

[ulysses]

11. heh - hadn't thought about Marc Perkel in some time.

:crazy:

[PDX Bara]

14. Welcome PDX Woman!

I am another PDX woman (PDX Bara - means "Portland Rose" in my ethnic language). I was about to lose my job in 1992 when Mr. Clinton was elected president but I had a wonderful Regional Vice President who kept me on staff for two or three months without an official job description. I went on to the best job I'd ever had. Within months after the @#%*&!!'s father bought him the presidency, I was "retired out" four days before my 59th birthday. I was extraordinarily lucky in that I was one of 25 or 26 people who was eligible for a special pension package that allows me to survive, albeit very thriftily, on that amount. So, my personal favorite is that I got to keep my job.

[PDXWoman]

15. Thank you.

:)

[MadHound]

18. And let's see what else Clinton did

Supported and enacted NAFTA, thus starting the outsourcing flood of well paying blue collar jobs. The other consequences of this move was that Mexican farmers lost their livliehooh and started crossing the border in record number. Also, the Tex-Mex border has turned into a toxic waste zone.

Introduced and enacted the '96 Telecom Act, which allowed even further media monopolization and a further silencing of the left in the MSM.

Ripped out a large part of the social safety net via welfare "reform"

Torn down even more civil rights with his increased emphasis on the War on Drugs.

Set back the cause of gays in the military with his "Don't ask-don't tell" policy.

Did nothing to increase the real world wages of the middle class, which declined at alarming rates under his administration.

Did nothing but watch as the gap between the rich and the rest of us opened into a record breaking chasm, worse than that of the robber baron days.

In a time of no war, when the populace wanted a peace dividend to finally come home, Clinton only cut military spending 0.8%.

Failed in his duty to uphold the Constitution by not investigating the Votescam in Florida '00 election.

Sorry friend, while Clinton was indeed a charismatic president, he was certainly not all that his admirers claim he was. He was a pragmatic, corporate whore of a president, and hopefully he will fade away soon, along with Hillary. His largest lasting contribution was to pull the Democratic party completely into the clutches of the DLC, and those who have made this government into the two party/same corporate master system of government.

[raccoon]

38. Thank you for pointing this out

I was thinking too how he was the one who signed the so-called "welfare reform" bill.

Yet just a day or so ago, I remarked to my sister that I never thought I'd miss Clinton so much. LOL

By comparison with Bush, Clinton seems absolutely wonderful--
but just about anybody would. Heck, Bush makes Gerald Ford look like an Einstein.

[MadHound]

39. Yeah, sad isn't it?

I found myself just the other week pining for those lovely halcion days of yore when Nixon ruled the roost, seriously.

Got what a nightmare this man is creating.

[CWebster]

22. Barbara Boxer is a fine Democrat

I understand she is related somehow through marriage.

[rman]

32. Helped pass NAFTA

Sorry to rain on your parade.

I don't hate Clinton, he's the best president the US has had in a long time. But he's no saint (and i don't care about the Monica thing).

[AJH032]

41. signed Kyoto

tried to get universal health care, strengthened Social Security through fiscal repsonsibility, expanded medicare, created 22 million jobs. Clinton-hating Dems love to point out NAFTA and welfare reform, but forget that he had to deal with a Republican congress for 6 of his 8 years as President. Of course he had to compromise on many things, like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That was a compromise between him and GIngrich, it wasn't Clinton's ideal choice.

[bvar22]

54. Did NOT try to get "Universal HealthCare".

*The Clinton HealthCare Plan was FAR from singler payer HealthCare.

*NAFTA was "pushed" by Clinton and the DLC during his campaign (1999) and signed while there was a Democratic Majority in Congress

[aspberger]

55. with all due respect

check your history book. Clinton tried to bring up health care reform in the early 90's and the right demagogued the issue and in 94 the repukes gained control of both houses. What Clinton did later, as you refer to, was under repuke controlled Congress.

[bvar22]

56. HealthCare "Reform" is NOT the same as "Universal healthCare".

george bush* "REFORMED" Medicare by adding his Prescription Drug benefit. The Clinton HealthCare package was a confusing hodgePodge of Corporate Welfare and private HMOs. There was very little to bring down or cap the out of control price increases in the HealthCare Industry.

Clinton campaigned on NAFTA!!!!!!
Rember the debates with Perot?
Remember the "Giant Sucking Sound"?

Trying to "pass off" NAFTA on a Republican Controlled Congress is worse than disingenuous. It is an OUTRIGHT LIE!!!.
NAFTA WAS a campaign cornerstone of Clinton and the DLC!!!

[aspberger]

57. your original post suggests Clinton didn't do squat about the health care

crisis in this country. He showed tremendous courage and tried to tackle that issue and it cost him dearly.

The other stuff. I stand corrected.

[bvar22]

58. You are confused!

My original post was a direct response to AJH032 in Post #41 where HE states: "...{Clinton} tried to get universal health care".
If you look in the top right hand corner of MY post (#54) you will see:
" Response to Reply #41"

MY response was:

"The Clinton HealthCare Plan was FAR from single payer HealthCare."

which YOU twist to imply that: "Your original post suggests Clinton didn't do squat about the health care." which is NOT what I said, implied, OR suggested.

[AJH032]

59. so are you

You're right, that Clinton supported NAFTA, but that doesn't change the fact that he had to deal with a Republican congress and had to compromise on many many things (gays in the military is just one that comes to mind). Clinton's official stance on free trade is that he supports it but feels we should "do more for middle class families who are hurt by it." So, he took a moderate/conservative stance on that issue. But, in general, it's stupid to criticize Clinton for not being able to push an extremely progressive agenda while in office.

[AJH032]

60. another thing (re: healthcare)

Clinton campaigned on healthcare coverage for everyone. In a speech to congress in September, 1993, President Clinton said he wanted a plan "giving every American health security--health care that is always there, health care that can never be taken away." That sounds pretty universal to me. Also, under the Clinton plan, the government would provide healthcare for all unemployed Americans. Others would have received coverage from their employers via payroll taxes. Yes, Clinton used healthcare organizations that were already in existence (like Blue Cross, for example), but he also proposed creating "healthcare alliances" to oversee costs and performance of the provides on behalf of Americans.

[bvar22]

61. Confused? moi? Not so.

I made two very simple statements that are 100% true and verifiable.

1)The Clinton HealthCare Plan was NOT Universal HealthCare

2)Clinton campaigned on and pushed for NAFTA.

With what do you disagree?

[AJH032]

62. 1/2

You're right that Clinton supported NAFTA, but did you read anything that I wrote?

The Clinton healthcare plan would have given every American healthcare coverage. That's about as close to universal as we've ever gotten. BTW, if you didn't like Clinton's healthcare proposal, you must have really hated Kerry's.

[bvar22]

65. I disliked BOTH.

I am also right that the Clinton HealthCare Package was NOT Universal HealthCare.


On Edit: There is more than enough partisan revisionism and torturing of facts on DU without adding to the pile.

[eridani]

69. No, it most assuredly was not universal

It was a bribe to the largest insurers. "If we give you lots of public bux, we'd like to ask you to pretty please insure more people." Then it would be up to people to buy in individually, which is worse than useless for people on tight budgets. It's a seriously stupid as making property taxes that support the fire department optional.

[AJH032]

70. depends how you look at it

if universal healthcare coverage to you means having the government directly pay for everyone's healthcare, then you're right, the Clinton plan didn't do that. Clinton's plan would have used the private sector to provide healthcare for those already employed and the government for those unemployed. By definition, universal means "including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration," which was, in this case, Americans. Just because it wasn't a socialized plan doesn't mean it wasn't universal, if employed correctly. It certainly was better than nothing.

[eridani]

71. I'll agree with better than nothing

--but that's all. Best estimates as I recall were 95% coverage. Leaving the private sector in means that your coverage changes with every job change, not to mention the cherry-picking that is the basis of private insurers' profits.

[Pepperbelly]

67. If there is anyone posting here who would have preferred Bush I over B.C.

I question that person's sanity.

So ... come on out. Would you rather have had Bush I during the 90s?

[union_maid]

68. Doesn't matter

Hillary Clinton isn't Bill Clinton. Being Bill Clinton was the number one thing he brought to the job. She doesn't have that. Not remotely.

He did some good things for the middle class and some things that didn't turn out so well.
Poverty went down under Clinton, but when it hard times came back, the safety net was even smaller than before.

Working people - by whom I mean anyone who is dependent on salary or wages to live, regardless of the color of your collar - need to know that the Democrats represent them before anything else. They need to know that Democrats will fight tooth and nail for them. They need to know that Democrats will face up to uncomfortable realities - such as the fact that the global economy means the game has changed and if there is to be an American middle class, and if that class is to remain accessible to those who are willing to work, some draconian changes might have to be made.

If Hillary would just do that, just talk straight to us about trade, our jobs and the future of the middle class, including the ability of low income people to achieve a middle class life, maybe that would make the world of difference.

She's not evil. She's cast some excellent votes. But she won't talk to us about what's important. You can't out-Christian the fundamentalists. She shouldn't try. Talk to people about improving the stability of families through stabilization of their financial lives. That's something that should cross party lines if it's clear and direct and includes specific plans and commitments.

It's not enough to fight the obvious battles, like social security. We need more from the Democrats than we got under Bill Clinton because things are different now.

And all the Democrats are going to have to figure out how to talk about the war. That's not going to be easy for any of them.

[Time for change]

72. I don't understand why you think that cutting the federal work force is

such a good thing.

I look at that more as a political move to appeal to the "center". Not that I have anything against political moves if they're necessary and not too damaging. But why assume that cutting the federal work force is a good thing?

I'm a federal worker, and I can tell you that one of the big things going on today is to hire contractors to do work that federal workers used to do. That way the Administration can brag about cutting the federal work force. But the paperwork required to do all this is quite large, and many people question whether or not it's simply a lot less efficient to do it that way.

Other times, the plan is simply to cut down the size of the work force in order to get credit for "reducing the size of government". But what about the repercussions of doing that, with regard to getting rid of federal services that are needed? I just don't understand why it is automatically assumed that this is a good thing.

[Mabus]

74. Psst, it was Gore who was in charge of REGO

or reinventing the government. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/07/gore/

BETHESDA, Md. (AllPolitics, April 7) -- Vice President Al Gore, the administration's point man in the unglamorous campaign to make the federal government work better, claims they are making progress.

<snip>

Gore called the government's attempts to improve its operations "just common sense." It's been an ongoing for Gore as vice president, in addition to his interest in high technology, the Internet and the environment.

IMHO this was one of the things that they turned on Gore, remember the accusations that he was reinventing himself? What the GOP did was to take the focus off what Gore actually reinvented.