Bill Clinton is the Rear Guard of the Welfare State

The Crimson editorial staff really managed to outdo itself on Monday, September 23 ("Presidential Race Offers No Choice"). Without so much as a glimmer of dissent, in its staff editorial it unanimously and unilaterally rejected the ideas of the Republican Party while complaining that Bill Clinton is insufficiently left-wing, and then amazingly lobbed the following stone at Bob Dole: "Certainly he has no new ideas. And the ones he has dredged up from the past are absurd."

Perhaps the Crimson should read the old proverb about glass houses, or at least listen to the old blues tune, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself." In the same editorial, the editorial staff whines, "The biggest hope for Democratic initiative in the next four years is a jobs bill...." The Crimson is welcome to yearn for the days of the nanny state, but must it really claim that such old nonsense represents the future? Even Dick Gephardt claims no longer to believe in Big Government, Provider of Jobs. Apparently the Crimson staff has watched the movie Dave one too many times.

As for the Crimson's ludicrous accusation that "Supply-side economics has been ridiculed by every economist except Jack Kemp...," I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Nobel laureates Gary Becker and Milton Friedman, both of whom have endorsed the Dole tax cut plan, aren't credible enough for The Crimson. And perhaps John F. Kennedy '40, who said on September 18, 1963 that "By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance," doesn't meet the Crimson's exacting standards--despite having been a Crimson editor. But what about Martin Feldstein? Didn't at least one Crimson editorialist manage to make it through Ec 10?

It's Bill Clinton, the rear guard of the welfare state, who represents the past. It's Bob Dole who represents the future. After all, if the Clinton budgets had been adopted without protest, the deficit would continue to increase. Increasing interest on the national debt, coupled with the out-of-control entitlements Bill Clinton has so successfully campaigned on, would mean that by 2002, there would be no room in the federal budget for any domestic spending at all--even The Crimson's precious jobs bill--without a huge tax increase. And who would bear the brunt of that? The very students who today read The Crimson. Maybe the Crimson editorial writers should look at how much more they'll pay in taxes before writing their next ill-founded liberal apologia. --William M. Jay '98   Parliamentarian, Harvard Republican Club