BILL CLINTON TO EXPLAIN HIS RECESSION ON CBS’ “60 MINUTES” (RNC Research)

Republican National Committee ^ | 8 March 2003 | RNC Research

[PhiKapMom]

RNC RESEARCH

BILL CLINTON TO EXPLAIN HIS RECESSION ON CBS’ “60 MINUTES”

Months Before Final 60 Minutes Ran Out On Clinton Administration, The Economic Recession Had Already Begun

_______________________________________________________

“President Bush’s main economic policy -- the large tax cut of last year was not responsible for any of the current damage [to the economy]. Indeed, given the twin shocks of 9/11 and the post-Enron stock market decline, the short-term stimulus created by the tax cuts has turned out to be fortuitously well timed.” (Editorial, “Negative Al Gore,” The Washington Post, October 5, 2002)

ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton Was In Office. “America went into recession long before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. … The new figures suggest … that the economy grew more slowly in … 2000 than was previously thought: GDP rose by 3.8% (compared with last year’s estimate of 4.1% and an initial figure of 5%).” (“Unwelcome Numbers,” The Economist, 8/3/02)

Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton’s Watch. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, “it was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming into 2001.”

* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;

* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;

* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;

* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;

* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and

* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

(Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)

Congress’ Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000. “By mid-year 2000 … signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A number of key economic and financial indicators provided evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future growth could weaken. A brief summary of important elements of this evidence, for example, would include the following:

* Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized growth rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0 percent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively, before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quarter of 2001.

* Key components of GDP such as real consumption expenditures slowed after mid-year as real income growth moderated, stock market values fell, employment gains lessened, and consumer confidence stalled and then deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally corroborated these developments.

* Gross private investment also contributed significantly to this general slowdown with most key investment categories registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-year basis).

* The index of leading indicators trended down after January 2000.

* Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year. Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged about 256,000 per month for the 2 1/2 years prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000 per month after mid-year 2000. The average workweek also decreased after mid-year.

* The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing Managers index, as well as manufacturing employment and workweek have all registered significant declines since mid-year 2000.

* Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-year 2000 as well.

In short, there can be little doubt that a significant economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year 2000 in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration.” (“Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment,” United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)

Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)

Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton Administration “the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to ….” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)

Clinton Administration Grossly Overestimated Strength Of The Economy. “Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books? … Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year, while in fact it was declining.” (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, “Sunny Clinton Forecast Leaves Cloud Over Bush,” Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02)

Drop In Investments In First Half Of 2000 Contributed To Recession. “A plunge in investment that began in the last half of 2000, along with the declines in equity markets, was an important force in the recession.” (Council Of Economic Advisers, “Strengthening America’s Economy: The President’s Jobs And Growth Proposals,” 1/7/03)

A Publication of the RNC Research Department

[Dolphy]

You are right, a new low for ex-presidents, but then that's Clinton's legacy, new lows.

I did hear about Carter's editorial that is to appear in the NY Times tomorrow. It fills me with so much anger. What is a just war? Shall we wait to see why Saddam is amassing weapons? Should we continue on the path of a decade old failed policy that punishes the people of Iraq while the tyrant has his way? Should we wait for the UN to call on us because Saddam has threatened a neighbor and place greater risks on our military? Should we roll the dice and see if a biological or chemical weapon finds its way to our shores?

What is just when facing a man with no sense of justice or value of human life? Jimmy Carter has no idea what the definition of just is if he can give a pass to the threats and human rights realities in Iraq.

[Liz]

.....and the increasing cost of his drug habit..........

[SoDak]

The only good thing the government can do for the economy is to stay out of it. Clintoon owes the prosperity in the 90's to one, and one thing only: the inexpensive PC. He had the unbelievable good luck to ooze into the White House at the time a technological revolution was happening. A whole new sector of the economy was built while he was staining the capital. I could take about as much credit for the boom of the 90's as Billy Jeff can.

[DennisR]

According to Bob Dole, the "debate" only lasts a minute or so. He was not too enthused about the first debate, saying that it is very difficult for Bill Clinton to say anything in 30 seconds. Like others, I could not physically, emotionally, or mentally endure watching Clinton on any show.

My advice--if you are going to watch it, do not blink, or you will miss it. And have the barf bag close by!

[deport]

Heck ol' Bob ought to be up to it for about 45 seconds anyway.... then his viagra may let him down...... This was only a 10 week deal wasn't it? I doubt it'll be that big of an impact one way or the other... I suspect more bragging rights for CBS was their motive.... Money, exposure, face time and ego would be the motives for the other two imo.

[swheats]

Nope. Must been the visions of granduer and the senate wives club or something stupid like that. Doesn't he know he can't wrestle with snakes and come out looking great.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't know either. I think perhaps he was flattered that someone would want to hire him to air his views in public. Sadly Bob doesn't realize that he is facilitating a man like Clinton airing his views in public. The same man who offered Bill and Hillary air time to rehab Bill after the Flower's affair became public, is now providing him another venue. Actually it's the same venue, Sixty Minutes.

I want to say the man's name is Hugh Hewitt, but then that's the name of the Conserative radio personality in Los Angeles. Perhaps someone will come along to correct me.

Dole served this nation honorably in the war. Over the years I think he lost his way. I don't think he means the nation ill, I just don't think he sees things clearly. Who in their right mind would possibly think it a good idea for the last man to hold the office of the Presidency, to become a media personality trashing the current President? Evidently Bob does. It is beyond my understanding to know exactly why he's adding legitimacy to the idea. He's the highest ranking Republican ex-office holder who in effect will be lending legitimacy to Sixty Minutes airing Clinton. If anyone challenges the idea, it will be mentioned that the highest ranking Republican ex-office holder is involved, and fine with it. Bob, Bob, Bob, what are you thinking?

We have a man who has been accused of so many sordid things. Rape, treason, obstruction of justice, bribery, receiving payments from the Chinese military... it goes on and on and on. Clinton has no morals at all. Even as a private citizen, with these problems surrounding the man, who would want to be a part of placing him on the air each week? Well Bob Dole would. Truly it is a sad day, and a blemish on Bob Dole that will go with him to his grave, that he has done this.

I lost all respect for Bob Dole during the government shut down. The media was saying that the White House was in talks on how to give in and restart the government. It was Friday. The story was the White House couldn't hold out for more than 48 more hours. In the face of this, the cards delt the end certain the victory ours, Bob Dole went on camera and said that the Republicans were going to give in. We couldn't hold the nation hostage. In that one instant he not only gave the Dems the high ground on this issue, he essentially slandered Newt Gingrich for all time. Bob Dole snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I'll never forgive him for that. What could that man have been thinking?

Oh well. Bob is a lost cause. Clinton will mop the floor with him. Dole is not brash and informed enough to take Clinton to task. Dole hasn't had to argue a solid point in decades. His Presidential campaign was sad. Now this. Why can't Conservatives get it right? This is a fiasco on the fast track.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Freep 'em: 60m@cbsnews.com

[woodyinscc]

Don Hewitt, he is a genetic lefty, no chance
of an epiphany for him!!

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks, I appreciate you coming up with the correct name. Hugh is a good guy. Sorry to interject his name here.

Yes Don is a geneticly defective froot loop. He and the Director Thomason made Clinton. What's more they are proud of it, the job he did and the whole sordid mess means nothing to them.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Good reference bump...

[woofie]

These things (recessions) just happen,kind of like that DNA on the blue dress.

[woodyinscc]

You know, they even brag about it!!Like it was
a job well done. I knew when I watched that show
back in 92, that it was the biggest bunch of BS
I had ever seen, and the man and his wife were
phonies!!

[AmishDude]

It shoulda been Newt.

[harpo11]

I wish I knew why CBS ever entertained the idea of having the impeached ex-president of the United States of America,
a man who arranged anti-American protests in Europe in 1968 while dodging the draft because he thought that he was just too good to serve in his country's military and proudly stated that he "loathed the military",
a man who is a perjurer and held in contempt of court,
a man who lost his law license and is barred from addressing the Supreme Court,
and a man who has a proven track record of despicable morals and has been accused of rape by Juanita Broderick,
as well as soliciting sex from Paula Jones,
and how can we forget how he enjoyed entertaining himself in the oval office with sink, cigar, and thonged intern.

After reading what I wrote, now I do wonder why an honorable man, Bob Dole would ever wish to sit next to that reprobate.

[isthisnickcool]

Interesting site.

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the post, PhiKapMom.

AmishDude is right. Newt would have given der shlickmeister better opposition.

[woodyinscc]

I do not have a tin hat, but I have felt that 60 min.
was used just as much as a front for their leftist causes,
as for good, honest journalism, and profit for CBS!


Thanks for the link!

[AmishDude]

Newt would have given der shlickmeister better opposition.

Well, Rush would have been the best choice, but Newt would have have been good enough. Problem is that Slick wouldn't have agreed to either. And, make no mistake, this is nothing more than attempt to get Clinton on TV every week.

Look at it this way, this whole enterprise elevates Dole and diminishes Clinton.