Clinton Economy; Votes by Boxer
Kenneth Khachigian (Commentary Jan. 4), meet George Will (Commentary too often).
You have a lot in common. You’re charter members of the Hate-President-Clinton Club, you use The Times’ columns extensively to spew your vitriol and you’re right-wing to the core.
But, like the rest of your fractious and disorganized party, you are 180 degrees apart.
Will describes the president as “negligible” every time he gets the chance. The news is that no president, not even Will’s adored Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Calvin Coolidge or Franklin Pierce, is “negligible,” though those four came perilously close.
Khachigian exhorts his fellow hard-hearts in Congress to “Please, please, don’t let [Clinton] outmaneuver and outsmart you again” on tax cuts, welfare, etc., as the president has time and time again for the past three years.
Fact is, lads, you’re both dead wrong. Clinton has presided over the strongest economy, the most stable political climate and the most peaceful era America has experienced in at least a generation, probably more.
The single most compelling reason for this miraculous economy has to be Clinton’s 1993 economic recovery program, which has led from a GOP-induced horrible deficit of $300 billion to a possible surplus this year or next. And not one Republican in Congress voted for it.
If you don’t believe me, then believe Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, one Republican who can see reality.
As they say in the military, “Fire at will!” George Will, that is. Khachigian, too.
CARROLL C. GEWIN
Fullerton
* The “mean-spirited, hardhearted Republicans” should be grateful to Kathryn Tarbell’s Dec. 28 letter, which points out several reasons for not supporting Sen. Barbara Boxer in 1998.
Tarbell’s description of Kenneth Khachigian’s Dec. 21 “attack” on Boxer as “loony” makes me wonder who is calling the kettle black.
These same Republicans are supported by many thoughtful Democrats on the items that Tarbell describes as loony.
For example, Boxer’s vote to increase the National Endowment for the Arts budget at a time when balancing the federal budget is a high priority certainly falls into the category of loony. Likewise, who would not vote for streamlining the inordinately lengthy death penalty appeal process? Further, how can anyone vote against much-needed welfare reform?
Tarbell’s words “honest and sincere” somehow do not seem synonymous with Boxer. Her reputation as one of the most highly partisan, publicity-seeking senators is well known. Compare her in-your-face outrage regarding former Sen. Robert Packwood for his indiscretions and her abrasive “justice-for-women” support of Anita Hill’s allegations against Clarence Thomas to her selective lockjaw position regarding Paula Jones and her allegations against Bill Clinton.
BOB BALL
Anaheim