Why I’ll take a Bill Clinton over a Barack Obama any day – and you should too

As we’re less than 100 days from the midterm elections, I think it’s a good time for a little a comparative analysis between constitutional conservatives and progressive socialists on the issue of economics.

First, let me clarify: this is not a comparison between political parties but rather philosophy of governance and the relationship between government and the individual. As I’ve said before, being a progressive has nothing to do with specific party — as Teddy Roosevelt evidenced. The fundamental difference is based on the evaluative criteria of the size and scope of government.

Progressive socialists believe government is the machine for change and is the instrument through which the needs of the individual are achieved. They feel “only government” — as President-elect Barack Hussein Obama stated countless times in a 2009 speech — is the vehicle by which social justice (read social egalitarianism) can be implemented. Let us never forget the words of first term President Obama in 2012 when he angrily proclaimed, “you didn’t build that.” Obama evidently believes if it were not for government building the roads to your door, your business would not exist.

The foolishness of Obama’s statement — and I don’t understand how he can’t know this – is that government doesn’t produce revenue. The revenue enabling construction of those roads — actually the existence of government — comes from those very same businesses you apparently didn’t build!

Going even a step further, Obama now preaches “economic patriotism” as a means to shame businesses who are bristling at his progressive socialist policies and punishing them, since he feels they don’t deserve the profits that they didn’t build anyway. Progressive socialists see the existence of the private sector solely as the fuel for their expansion of a bigger government — a sentiment wholeheartedly embraced by the senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.

And consider the interesting irony of President Bill Clinton — heralded as the senior Democrat statesman — who said in his 1996 State of the Union address, “the era of big government is over.” Amazingly Bill Clinton did a lot to decrease the size and scope of government. He actually instituted welfare reforms — reversed by Obama — and did indeed benefit from residual Reagan economic effects, but used tax receipts intelligently to balance the budget and create a surplus.

I do however take umbrage with his cuts to defense as a means to increase some domestic spending programs — most laughably, the “midnight basketball” program.

However, in comparison to George W. Bush who embraced tax cuts but increased the size and scope of government – in other words, spending –surpluses went to deficits and debt increased over eight years by some $5 trillion.

Of course everyone loves to jump all over Bush, but Obama has already added $7 trillion to the debt and he still has two-and-a half years to go. And I know everyone wants to blame Bush for the 2008 financial meltdown tied to the mortgage industry, but there were some preceding culprits as well.

President Jimmy Carter expanded government’s role in the mortgage industry believing everyone had a “right” to own a home. He therefore created the Community Reinvestment Act, which made demands on the industry to allow individuals to secure home loans who probably should not have — hence the subprime issue. Government, in its pursuit of social justice in the housing industry, sought more centralized government control — Fannie Mae and later Freddie Mac. And it was under the Clinton administration that the critical financial regulation that separated commercial and investment banking, the Glass-Steagall Act, was repealed, allowing mortgages to be securitized and sold off — creating a financial mess.

So I do support reinstating Glass-Steagall.

Constitutional conservatives see the relationship of government to the individual as one where policies are created to support the growth of opportunity. Government should be there to provide a safety net but not a hammock. Our government must understand – and abide by — its limited scope as articulated in the Constitution, and therefore fiscal responsibility and spending priorities are key.

If the right economic policies exist — tax, regulatory, and monetary — then those folks who “did build that” can build more, expand, hire and grow. And guess what happens? Tax receipts actually increase when the burden of taxation is lower, the growth of government is restricted and policies allow small business entrepreneurship to flourish.

When in Congress I sent a letter to House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers (R-Ky) and asked a simple question. Of the 12 appropriations bills, what has priority and what is the spending precedence? I suggested we develop a three-tier system and appropriately create spending priorities. But I never heard back.

Progressive socialists seek to expand the welfare nanny-state. Constitutional conservatives implement policies that get Americans back to work and spur on economic growth, opportunity, and promise. A simple comparative analysis of GDP growth between Obama and Reagan would pretty much validate that assertion.

So the question is simple for America: will we elect more progressive socialists — party irrelevant — or constitutional conservatives? The former uses fear, intimidation, and coercion with the end result being economic demise and enslavement to bigger government. The latter embraces the indomitable entrepreneurial spirit and individual sovereignty to advance policies leading to economic empowerment.

Progressive socialists don’t believe in the pursuit of happiness, as Jefferson wrote, but constitutional conservatives do. Instead progressives believe in the guarantee of happiness – which only government can provide.

It is the underlying difference in the economic theory of the two as progressive socialists embrace policies that ensure the equality of outcomes, while we constitutional conservatives fight for and defend the American way of advancing equality of opportunity.

We have a big choice this November because we sure as heck blew it in 2012.

Leave a Reply

31 Comments on "Why I’ll take a Bill Clinton over a Barack Obama any day – and you should too"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Eric Martin
Guest

Excellent article, Mr. West!

halevi
Guest

Great article

Ken Easterling
Guest

I am a republican. I actually voted for Bill the second time because he was doing such a good job with the economy. So, yeah, I would choose Bill over Obama any day.

Freckles
Guest

I was gonna comment but you already said what I was going to say!!

TruthWFree
Guest

Was it Bill or a Congress controlled by Republicans? Also bob dole was not the most dynamic person to run…kinda like McCain. Or even Romney who was to nice.

Bobbie
Guest

I’m sure the republican congress had a lot to do.with it but Clinton had to work “with” the congress or nothing would have been accomplished.

TruthWFree
Guest

Agree. He definitely did not have the “my way or the highway” dictatorial attitude like Obama.

pepjrp
Guest

All of you three are right on. No surprise that the Colonel feels this way as well. It does get me a little that most liberals equate Clinton and Obama as both being the same and put them up on the same pedestal. They have no ideas of the differences. I was disappointed in Clinton, when after the race card was played on him and millions of Blacks turned their back on him because of Hillary’s skin color during Obama’s campaign and then he actually went on to campaign for Obama. He should have drawn the line there.

Sams_1
Guest
Please, I was just reading why that is never a good idea. Take neither! For there are no demons just Lucifer would be a seemingly poetic way to put it-but I’not rymin today They , the Clintons are wayy more used to this socialist step ladder to the final ideas of their puppet masters it seems Clinton, more palatable I get it Seemed to be a real lover of Jefferson and all. They are wolves various stages of sheeps clothing and will do what they are told. WE did not blow it that bad in 2012 it is he who… Read more »
LightTheDarkCorners
Guest

Clinton didn’t want to fundamentally change the country – he just wanted to get laid – he should not have been impeached for that – doing so made it impossible to impeach Obama who is actually guilty of running the most lawless administration in our history. And he wants to destroy our system of government – enslave us. Give me Bill any day over that.

Kimberly Vargas
Guest

Then almost all of out presidents were guilty of extramarital sex so we should have impeached all of them as well? based on their sex lives?

concernedcitizen20099
Guest
concernedcitizen20099
It is much more complicated than this author is stating.. So called Conservatives have ruined the economy over decades.. See Reagan Budget Director “How My Republican Party Ruined the American Economy”. Financial crisis and crash was caused by Wall St.Derivaties according to Warren Buffet and not Main St. Republican Party wants big goverment in everyone’s bedroom wiretapping your phones and PDAS reading your emails etc.., starting and getting involved with wars 365 days per year, No taxation but wants to run up trillions in new deficits every year and never pay for it. Deregulation and little or no oversight of… Read more »
Ave Ashley Victoria E
Guest
Ave Ashley Victoria E
Republicans don’t fit into Constitutional Conservatives, your an delusional if you believe so… your views are misguided also. Conservatives don’t associate with Republican views on everything, …. So I would be careful on what your mixing together in beliefs, in government, and on social views, not everyone’s the same. Conservatives fall into Consitutionalist, Libertarians, Tea Party, NRA Advocates, etc. We have similar views in line with Republicans, but we aren’t Republicans nor Dems, or Liberals … We separate ourselfs from them as a party and group that doesn’t support any form of War, unless necessary, prefers not pandering to any… Read more »
No way out
Guest

Terrific work, like the powers that you were granted as a U.S colonial, subsequently abusing them to the point of inauspicious self dismissal. Grain of salt, taken here. Thank you.

Bobbie
Guest

Hey big mouth. Why don’t you explain what your talking about instead of being so juvenile and putting up these little teases so you can get attention. Or maybe you are a juvenile. I do know your nit real bright.

No way out
Guest

Park the blow up doll bumpkin. and mix in an English class. “Nit”?

Fiveseven
Guest

Outstanding.

gregzimmerman007
Guest
No govt., therefore no roads, therefore no businesses. HOW FOOLISH. The car was invented after the Wright brothers created the plane — we could have flown from business to business if we wanted. But that’s not really my point. My point is that cars were not build until the early 1900’s… which means roads were NOT built until sometime after that. IN FACT, cars you get around “fine” on dirt roads unless it rained and the dusty paths became mud bowls… that is what necessitated roads, NOT BUSINESSES. Besides, are we saying that BEFORE the time of cars and roads… Read more »
gregzimmerman007
Guest

My only correction, Allen would be: the Glass-Steagall Act was (partially) repealed by passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which Clinton signed into law… thus allowing for the mixing of Residential/Commercial (Real Estate) Investments (i.e. mortgages) with the Banking/Financial Investments (i.e. stock market).

gregzimmerman007
Guest

Negating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act THUS would restore the Glass-Steagall Act to it’s FULL strength and prevent another meltdown in the residential (housing) and perhaps also commercial (building) stock-trading market, something that we badly need, as you have noted.

Warren Weber
Guest

Clinton might have been a rapist, a philanderer, a serial liar, but he did some good for the U. S. and had enough redeeming qualities to keep him from being voted The Worst President of the U. S. Since WWII” as Obama has been voted.

akatom3565
Guest

Clinton could not be trusted around your wife or daughters but you can’t trust the boy king on anything!

Craig Fine
Guest
Wow, Allen West, I am only going to comment on this one RIDICULOUS and CHILDISH comment of yours: “Let us never forget the words of first term President Obama in 2012 when he angrily proclaimed, “you didn’t build that.” I mean, seriously…ARE YOU 15 YEARS OLD!? OUR President, made the statement when he was giving credit to FELLOW AMERICANS and their collective hard work that built the roads, and the buildings that house your business. He was saying, that anyone in business, isn’t successful on their own. You had other people that helped you get there, directly, or indirectly. AND… Read more »
Trucker
Guest

Osama Obama soretoes is a Communist=Demorat and should be hanged and put on trial.

thinkingabovemypaygrade
Guest
thinkingabovemypaygrade

Sometimes the businessperson “did build that”

….Mostly on their own.

Think of Steve Jobs. Think of Walt Disney. Think of Ms. Pleasant Rowland. There are many others…

We shut these legal and good entrepreneurs at our own loss…

PS guess Israel is glad they didn’t shut down the inventor(s) of their Iron Dome defense system.

Bobbie
Guest

Drinking that koolaid much? You must have been listening to a.whole different interview than I heard. And seems to.me your snarky attitude Doesn’t speak well for your integrity either. Those who live in glass houses….in closing, I hope your proud and will enjoy being a communist muslim and if you discover your mistake after it’s too late I hope you choke.on your bad choices and what you and your co horts have done to America and her people. How do you people even sleep at night?????

pdigaudio
Guest

That’s exactly what that bastard said: “You didn’t build that.” They sure as hell did. I didn’t have any help. No one I know that built anything had any help either. Especially my father.

MotherBatherick
Guest

When obama said “you didn’t build that”, that was commie speak for “all for one, one for all”. Communists don’t care how hard or how little you work, they believe in redistribution of wealth..what’s yours is mine…which we all know is ANTI-AMERICAN. They can shove their commie bs up their…

MotherBatherick
Guest

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) was pushed by noneother, a “Chicago community activist”. The Act was suppose to help low-income and minority neighborhoods. Look at these areas now, for starters, Detroit for instance…

Wonder how much obama’s White House Advisor, Valerie Jarrett, profited off her real estate business from the CRA? Afterall, it was subprime loans (including ACORN loans) that were to help minorities. Instead, it ruined lives. In fact, everything Leftists touch turns to you-know-what. And it’s all downhill from there.

random
Guest

Right on the money!

lcuvillier
Guest

Man, what a sad day when we long for Clinton….I know what he meant in the article, but still….just saying