Chen Baoshen
Author: Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
From Reaganomics to Clintonomics is a major change in U.S. presidential economics. In this year's presidential economic report Clinton said, "America thrives on change ...... but we as a nation have let things slide in too many ways for too long." "For 12 years, interest-by-interest penetration of economic theory has created a false prosperity on top of a mountain of federal debt. The result of the nation's laissez-faire has caused so many American families, even those with two working parents, to stop living the life-enhancing American dream for their children." This was Clinton's critique of Reaganomics, and the main basis for his determination to change "laissez-faire" into "activism". Turning two years almost past, Clinton to implement changes in the domestic and foreign economic policy progress, what is the achievement? This is a question of considerable interest. I will try to make a rough analysis.
First results of fiscal policy
In order to solve the problem of large deficits plaguing the U.S. economy, Clinton to cut the federal deficit on a priority position. To that end, he resolved to cut the deficit by $493 billion on top of the $500 billion in deficit reductions Bush agreed to with Congress in 1990. This includes a total *** compression of spending of $247 billion over the next five years and a tax increase of $246 billion. Tax increases are supposed to be a backwater, but Clinton's policy of reasonable burden-sharing puts 90 percent of the tax increase on the shoulders of the top 6.5 percent of taxpayers. Income tax rate increases were even more limited to the 1.2 percent of high-income earners. In this way, he won a tactical victory by gaining the support of the majority of taxpayers. Nonetheless, passage of this budget bill was still tough, especially in the Senate, and without Gore's final vote it almost became a stalemate. As a sign of commitment and good faith to deficit reduction, the 1994 budget bill froze spending for FY 1994-1998 at $548 billion (at current prices before inflation), or $2.5 billion below 1993 nominal spending. This nominal spending was estimated at an annual inflation rate of 2.8 percent, with further cuts in spending if inflation fell below projections. This budget austerity includes the White House's exemplary reduction of the federal workforce by 100,000 and the postponement of index-of-life adjustments to federal employee wages. Medical care in entitlement programs will be cut by $18 billion by 1998. As a result of this effort it is projected that fiscal outlays will be reduced to $1,738.2 billion by 1998 from $1,825.5 billion before the cuts, and revenues will rise from $1,492.2 billion to $1,550.8 billion. The fiscal deficit will correspondingly fall from $333.2 billion to $187.4 billion, a reduction of $145.8 billion, and the proportion of GDP will fall from 4 percent to about 2.2 percent. The Clinton administration called the fiscal policy adopted in 1993 a real and credible deficit-reduction policy, and believed that this was the reason why Wall Street responded by changing their expectations of inflation, and long-term interest rates were thus able to fall. To 10-year government bonds, for example, before Clinton came to power in 1992, the interest rate was 7.01%, compared with the three-month Treasury bill rate to be 103% higher; to 1993, the former fell to 5.87%, and the latter than the interest rate differential fell to 92%. 1994 Federal Reserve in order to carry out macroeconomic control, the successive increase in short-term interest rates, long-term interest rates naturally also be affected. But long-term interest rates rose much slower than short-term interest rates, to July 1994, the 10-year long-term government bonds only 66% higher than the 3-month treasury bills. The decline in long-term interest rates favored business investment and consumer purchases of real estate and consumer durables. The Clinton administration argued that the cuts in military spending and the increases in taxes in its fiscal policy had a negative effect on economic growth, but that the stimulus provided by the decline in long-term interest rates had an offsetting effect on the economy. This was an important reason why the U.S. economy was able to perform well in 1993-1994 pandora charms outlet.
Future-oriented investment policy
The important difference between the Clinton administration and the Reagan and Bush administrations in terms of economic policy lies not in the fiscal policy of deficit reduction but in the future-oriented investment policy. The activist Clinton administration declared, "Shifting the focus of federal spending from consumption to investment is the hallmark of this administration's economic policy, and we are committed not only to controlling government spending, but to directing it to more productive uses."
Clinton's first emphasis was on investing in human resources. The aim was to improve the quality of the U.S. labor force to meet the growing international competition in the economy. In the 1994 federal budget, a $37.8 billion, four-year "Lifelong Learning Program" was proposed. It includes Head Start programs for mentally retarded children; Goals 2000 to improve the performance of America's teachers and students; Transition from School to Work, a partnership between the Departments of Education and Labor to provide vocational training for high school students; and the School-to-Work Transition Program, which helps students get into college and gives them the opportunity to serve the community and thus earn a living. National service programs that help students get into college and gain career skills by giving them opportunities to serve the community; loan reform programs that lower the interest rate on loans to help more young Americans go to college; and retraining programs for dislocated workers.
The most innovative of these programs is the national service program. First, it is a program in which the state provides participants with below-market wages and education grants of up to $4,725 a year to help them get a college or university education along with valuable vocational training. This is at the government's expense because employers are reluctant to pay for the cost of learning, fearing that the money will be wasted if the employee quits. Second, the program is implemented by state and local governments on a local basis, addressing the unfunded needs of local governments for social services. Third, the National Service Program provides all Americans with the dual opportunity to earn a paycheck and receive training in a variety of occupations, which they have had difficulty doing in the past. The program will enroll 20,000 people in 1994 and 100,000 a year thereafter.
The second aspect of the investment program is infrastructure. The Clinton administration developed a four-year, $48 billion plan to rebuild America. Clinton believes that for a long time the United States has a serious debt to the public **** infrastructure. The Department of Transportation estimates that almost 20 percent of highways are in extremely poor or barely adequate condition, 20 percent of bridges are structurally deficient, many airports are overcrowded, and sewage treatment facilities are overburdened. Investments must therefore be made to change the status quo. The Clinton Administration believes that well-planned investments in public * * * infrastructure will bring sizable benefits to the national economy. Also included in the plan to rebuild America is a four-year, $8 billion investment in improving water quality, protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, forest research, housing and community development, and rural development. The third area of the investment program is science and technology. Technology investments made up a significant portion of the Rebuild America program. The Clinton administration believed that physical capital was not the determining or even the most important factor in raising productivity, and that in the long run productivity increases and improvements in living standards depended largely on technological progress. The history of progress in the industrialized countries shows that what matters is working more skillfully rather than working harder. But technological change and technological progress depend on the new discoveries made by scientists and engineers in laboratories and on factory floors. The capital and intellectual investment in their scientific research for this purpose is enormous. A great deal of scientific research and development in the U.S. depends on private enterprise, but supportive and basic research has long been considered a statutory function of government because of the spillover effects of information. Meaning that skills gained by one company through scientific research can quickly spread to other companies, making it cheaper for other companies while the innovator receives limited returns. It is estimated that the rate of return on capital for scientific research and development has to be as high as 50-100 percent, while in reality less than half of that is received by the innovating firm. As a result, the Clinton Administration asked Congress to extend the tax credit for research and experimentation and to increase investment in collaborative research with industry. Dozens of new manufacturing technology promotion stations were added to accelerate the invention and diffusion of new technologies, and then the market mechanism was brought into play when the technology matured.
A key policy consideration for the Clinton administration was how to transform defense research and development. With the massive cuts in defense spending, the government should reduce spending on scientific research in the field of defense, or shift this spending to civilian technology? Clinton believes that the latter is the sensible choice. Therefore, the government has decided to shift the Department of Defense's research efforts and national laboratories to collaborate with industry on research and development.
The U.S. Information Superhighway program, which has attracted widespread attention around the world, is the halo of the Clinton administration's technology policy. The program was largely a government initiative but was not funded by the government. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, headed by Vice President Al Gore and Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Tyson, as well as a number of economic, technical, legal experts and representatives of the telecommunications industry to participate in the "Information Infrastructure Task Force" is working intensively. The plan is for the federal government to be responsible for the overall design, and for industry to invest in, build and operate it. The federal government is currently working to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on all means of telecommunications, including television, cable, telephone, and satellite, and to encourage industry cooperation and competition, in the interest of the consumer. The Task Force has now submitted three draft laws to Congress. The new laws have yet to be discussed and approved by Congress. Clinton's future-oriented investment program demonstrates the new posture of the new administration. But the measures it has taken are hardly immediately effective. So they won't add much weight to the president's approval ratings.
Resistance to social welfare policy
Reforming the current U.S. health insurance system is the center of gravity of the Clinton administration's social welfare policy. In this year's Economic Report of the President Clinton said, "Today the United States spends more on health care relative to the size of its economy than any advanced industrialized nation. Yet we insure only a relatively small fraction of the population, and we lag behind in important overall health indicators such as average life expectancy and infant mortality. More than 15 percent of Americans-nearly 39 million-were uninsured until 1992, and tens of millions more are underinsured or will lose coverage when they lose their jobs. Meanwhile, health care costs continue to climb, adding to medical expenses and insurance premiums for American families and exacerbating the budget crisis at all levels of government." This is a true picture of the current state of health insurance in the United States. Clinton's health care reform plan to Congress looks to address four areas. First, there are tens of millions of Americans who do not enjoy health insurance; second, the private insurance industry charges too high a fee for those in poor health; third, the lack of effective competition in the current health insurance, resulting in hospitals and patients do not care about the cost of the fourth, insurance spending has become a burden that the government budget can hardly bear. For this reason, Clinton proposed in his reform plan: (1) from January 1, 1998 for all Americans to provide health insurance, so that every American can enjoy the routine outpatient, hospitalization, emergency, prevention, prescription dispensing, rehabilitation, home health care and nursing care, laboratory tests and diagnosis. Treatment for mental illness and various vices would also be covered under the health plan on a limited basis; (2) Require states to establish "health care coalitions" for large groups of consumers, which would collect premiums and negotiate health care plans with hospitals and insurance companies on a competitive basis, as well as be responsible for administering the cost of spending. All companies with fewer than 5,000 employees would be required to purchase insurance through the health care coalitions; and (3) employers would be required to pay at least 80 percent of the average cost of health insurance for unmarried workers and 55 percent of the average cost of insurance for workers' families. However, firms with fewer than 5,000 employees may not spend more than 7.9 percent of their payroll on health insurance. Businesses with fewer than 75 employees and average wages of $24,000 or less are eligible for government subsidies; (4) Tax increases. Raise the cigarette tax from the current 24 cents to 99 cents per pack, impose a 1 percent payroll tax on companies with 5,000 or more workers that do not participate in the "insurance coalition," and allow the health care coalition to add an additional 2.5 percent assessment on premiums for administrative expenses; (5) Limit the annual increase in health insurance premiums to no more than the rate of inflation after 2000, and provide the government with the opportunity to increase health insurance premiums to no more than 7.9 percent of the total payroll; (6) Increase taxes. than the rate of inflation and to cap government spending on health care.
This plan was proposed on October 27, 1993 A fierce battle of offense and defense raged around the plan between Democrats,**** and both parties. Minority Leader *** and GOP Rep. Dole, House Majority Leader Democrat Rep. Gephardt, and Senate Majority Leader Democrat Rep. Mitchell all offered their own amendments. The difference between Gephardt's program and Clinton's is that it delays the timetable for the introduction of universal health care by one year. Government taxation would consist mainly of a 45% increase in the cigarette tax and a 2% sales tax on all insurance premiums; businesses with fewer than 100 employees would be able to participate in a government insurance program called "Medicare Part III"; and there would be no requirement to organize "insurance unions". There would be no controls on private pharmaceutical industry health care costs until the year 2000. Obviously, his position is a step backward from Clinton's plan. But the principle of universal health care is still upheld. Even with such concessions, it is estimated that there are 70 votes short of what is needed to get the program passed.
On Aug. 3, the same day as Gephardt, Mitchell offered his own package. It was more modest than Gephardt's program. It called only for 95 percent of Americans to be covered by health insurance by the year 2000; it did not force states to create health care coalitions; it was to be financed largely by cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending, and no longer required employers to cover 80 percent of the premiums; employers would be required to help their workers pay the premiums in some states only if they failed to achieve the goal of covering 95 percent of Americans with universal coverage after 2002; and employers would pay the premiums for businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and employers would pay the premiums for businesses with fewer than 25 employees. For businesses with fewer than 25 employees, employers would pay 50 percent of the premiums, while employers with fewer than 25 employees would not pay; the largest tax increases would be a 1.75 percent surtax on health insurance premiums and an excise tax on guns and ammunition, as well as higher premiums for wealthy seniors who receive medical care. Passage of the package hinges on the 10 Democratic senators who have so far ridden the fence.
***and GOP Rep. Dole's program is a clear antithesis to Clinton's. While paying lip service to the goal of health insurance for all Americans, its proposal would actually place a large portion of the poor outside of health insurance, subsidize only the poorest uninsured workers, allow, but not require, businesses and individuals to organize insurance alliance-type organizations; do not require employers or individuals to purchase insurance; and businesses with 2 to 50 workers would be able to purchase Federal Employee Health Benefits coverage. No taxes would be raised; the original provision for a 25 percent tax deduction for premiums paid by self-employed persons would instead be raised to 100 percent; and there would be no price controls on health care costs.
When the four proposals are compared, it is clear that the fundamental differences between the Democrats and the **** and the party lie in the question of whether to have universal health insurance; who should pay for it; and whether to rein in growing health-insurance expenditures. These issues involve the interests of tens of millions of hitherto uninsured people, the interests of business owners, and the vested interests of the health care industry and insurers. Clinton is clearly trying to seize the banner of defending the interests of the former, and Dole stands to defend the interests of the latter. The Gephardt and Mitchell programs attempt to make certain concessions while maintaining the basic spirit of the Clinton program. Mitchell is now expressing confidence that he can secure an agreement with the moderates on a limited reform program. But with the congressional recess looming, that prospect has grown dimmer by the day. Sources say Clinton has signaled pessimism that he will no longer make health insurance reform a priority in this year's congressional session, while indicating that he will veto any bill that does not include universal health care as a component. It seems that the health care system that was once the flagship of Clinton's reforms has been put on hold, at least for this year, by resistance from all sides. We'll have to wait until next year to see how it turns out.
Aggressive trade policy
Clinton's foreign trade policy has both inherited and new features. The inheritance is the two major changes of the Reagan and Bush administrations: one is to shift from free trade to fair trade, and to use the name of fair trade to practice protectionism; the other is to shift from multilateralism to bilateralism, and to promote multilateralism with bilateralism. The new features of the Clinton government's foreign trade policy: First, the emphasis on improving the competitiveness of the country, the expansion of exports as a way to raise workers' wages and revitalize the U.S. economy. Second, the "activism" internationalization, in order to open up the international market at the expense of the "sanctions" stick aggressively.
In the field of trade, Clinton is proud of his performance in two things: First, the establishment of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA); and second, the Uruguay Round of negotiations, which took a long time to complete at the last minute.
The signing of the NAFTA agreement was both a successful bilateral negotiation and strengthened Clinton's position at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting and the Uruguay Round negotiations. So Clinton was pleased when the agreement passed Congress. The significance of the establishment of NAFTA can not only look at the United States, Canada, Mexico, three geo-economic advantages of complementary, more importantly, it is also part of the United States global strategy, is the United States in the economic triangle of the battle for the fight against Japan, Europe, and the establishment of a strong bridgehead for their own. After this step, the next step is to establish from north to south, including the entire western hemisphere "American economic circle" and "Pacific **** same body". The realization of this overall strategic intent naturally can not be achieved overnight, but as long as the United States in this process always take the initiative, hold on to the leadership, it can ensure that they in the struggle to capture the U.S. Asian market for Japan and Europe to gain an advantageous position.
Clinton's role in NAFTA was to remove most of the Democrats, labor unions, and environmentalists from the agreement, which was accomplished through the signing of three side agreements.
On labor protections, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) was signed, which called for a ban on child labor, health and safety standards, and a minimum wage. In addition, the Mexican government pledged to link increases in the minimum wage to increases in labor productivity. The United States also reserved the right to use Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 on labor issues.
In the area of environmental protection, the North American Commission for Environmental Protection (NACEP) was established, along with an office. A 10-year Border Environment Program was developed to comprehensively address air, soil and water quality and hazardous waste disposal. Two agencies were created to fund the development of environmental protection infrastructure along the U.S.-Canada border.
The NAFTA agreement was finally signed on November 17, 1993, after many twists and turns. Its immediate benefit to the U.S. was the ability to expand exports. According to statistics, in 1991 the U.S.*** exported $422 billion in goods, creating 7.2 million jobs, with exports to Canada and Mexico amounting to $118 billion, creating 2.1 million jobs. By 1995 an additional 17.5 million jobs could be created as a result of the growth of U.S. capital goods exports to Mexico. By that time, one million people in the United States will be employed in U.S. exports to Mexico. In the increase in employment at the same time, the wage level will also be increased. According to statistics, the average per capita wage in the U.S. export industry is now 17 percent higher than in other industries. The success of the Uruguay Round negotiations was also seen by Clinton as an achievement in its own right, as the U.S. negotiating strategy carried significant weight. The protracted nature of the negotiations reflected the conflicts between the United States, Japan and Europe, as well as the conflicting interests of the developed and developing countries, led by the United States. An agreement is certainly beneficial to all countries in the world, but the United States is clearly the biggest winner.
In addition to tariff reductions, the first is the gradual integration of agricultural trade into the GATT principles over a six-year period. European countries committed to converting quotas on non-tariff barriers into tariffs and reducing them by 36 percent, while reducing agricultural price subsidies by 20 percent. Although this result falls short of the U.S. request to completely eliminate agricultural subsidies within 10 years, it is a big step forward; secondly, the basic principles of trade in services have been incorporated into the new Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) for the first time; thirdly, the issue of intellectual property rights has also been incorporated into GATT for the first time, and all countries unanimously committed to protecting trade-related patents, trademarks and copyrights and penalizing counterfeiting; fourthly, trade-related investment measures have been included in the Agreement, requiring the gradual incorporation of the principles into the Agreement. Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), which call for the gradual elimination of restrictions on foreign investment. These four issues are of great interest to U.S. foreign economic and trade activities. However, they have not been addressed in any of the GATT negotiations. The United States in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Area negotiations and the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Area negotiations on these issues have been extremely emphasized and made significant progress. The so-called "bilateral for multilateral" approach was to use the results of those negotiations to strengthen the position of the United States in the GATT negotiations, and that aim had been reflected in the final outcome of the Uruguay Round negotiations. However, in the eyes of the Americans, this is still only the beginning, and has not yet fully achieved the United States wishes.
The United States was initially opposed to the establishment of the World Trade Organization and eventually made concessions. The United States is concerned about the organization after the entry into force of the United States in the trade friction will have to comply with the organization's arbitration and can no longer rely on U.S. domestic law to wield the stick of Section 301. The United States Deputy Trade Representative testified before Congress that the United States would still be able to take unilateral action against so-called "unfair trade countries" after the new World Trade Organization came into force. He said that "the new trade regime will not undermine the effective implementation of U.S. trade laws, particularly Section 301 and anti-dumping laws". The face of power politics is fully evident.
Although the United States in the Uruguay Round negotiations gained a lot, but did not fully satisfy the appetite of various domestic interest groups. For example, the movie, audio-visual products, a kind of service industry in some countries firmly resisted the GATT rules were not included. For example, the financial and telecommunications industries were also excluded from the agreement. Shipping was not included in the scope of the agreement because of the protectionism of the United States shipping industry itself. In textiles the quota system of the Multi-Fibre Agreement will be eliminated in three steps by 2005, which is beneficial to developing countries, but in terms of lowering high tariffs the US is not moving towards the point that developing countries would like to reach.
The United States, with the support of France, had called for the inclusion of a "social clause" in the agreement that would link labor interests to international trade standards. The ASEAN countries resisted the West's attempt to use the social clause to force developing countries either to raise their labor costs to an agreed minimum level or to be subjected to punitive special tariffs because their production costs were significantly lower than those of the West. The deadlock was finally broken by an agreement to refer the issue to the future World Trade Organization.
Controversial Financial Policies
The four major policies talked about above were presented by President Clinton as the overall economic strategy of the Clinton administration in the President's 1994 Economic Report. Financial policy was not one of them, because under the U.S. economic system the Federal Reserve System is headed by Congress. In practice, however, the president still has a great deal of influence over financial policy. During the two years of the Clinton administration, financial policy underwent a turnaround from lowering interest rates to stimulate economic recovery to raising interest rates to prevent inflation. Following the February 4, 1992 Federal Reserve Open Market Committee made the decision to raise the federal funds rate from 3% to 3.25%, and then on March 22, further increased to 3.5%. April 1, pp. 8, and then raised to 3.75%. May 17 to take a greater step to raise the federal funds rate to 4.5%, the discount rate was raised from 3% to 3.5%. Four consecutive increases in interest rates on the U.S. economy is a big impact, caused a fierce debate.
The Fed's decision was based on the so-called "natural rate of unemployment". The Federal Reserve Act passed in the early years of the "promotion of maximum employment" as one of the Fed's policy objectives, passed in 1978, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act to maximize employment for the unemployment rate of no more than 4%. But the monetarists believe that there is a natural rate of unemployment against which monetary policy does not work. In their view, because of changes in economic conditions in recent years, the natural rate of unemployment should be 6-6.5 per cent rather than 4 per cent. If the policy makers to the natural unemployment rate in spite of the hard to achieve the goal of 4%, will certainly push the economy to more than its potential capacity above the level, the result can only cause inflation, and ultimately lead to a slowdown in economic growth and a sharp increase in the unemployment rate. They believe that in February of this year, the United States unemployment rate has fallen from 7.4 percent in 1992 to 6.5 percent in May to 6.0 percent. Together with the equipment utilization rate and the economic growth rate are close to the warning line, so tightening the monetary is necessary. The Fed called the tightening a neutral monetary policy that neither stimulates nor hinders economic growth.
The Fed's fourth increase in interest rates was highly controversial in the community. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce chided the financial community on Wall Street that it should not sacrifice the business community on Grand Avenue for its own interests. The AFL-CIO also said that the Fed was raising interest rates to pour cold water on the economy at a time when there were still 8.4 million unemployed and 6.6 million people working part-time jobs in the U.S. The result would only be that the unemployed would not be able to find jobs. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on May 27 and asked Greenspan to explain the reasons for raising interest rates. The argument centered on the U.S. economy has just improved without any signs of inflation, why the Fed has to put the brakes on the economy. Lawmakers at the hearing asked Greenspan to give assurances that he would not raise interest rates in the future.
This time to raise interest rates a month later, due to the trade deficit with Japan to expand, the foreign exchange market of the dollar against the yen on June 21 fell below the 1:100 mark. This puts the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to save the dollar decline and maintain interest rates to prevent the economic slide between the dilemma. After two months of observation and reflection after the Fed eliminated the latter concerns, on August 16 to make the federal funds rate to 4.75%, the discount rate increased to 4% of the decision. Fed officials claimed that this interest rate level is compatible with the potential economic growth capacity of the United States.
The Clinton administration was dissatisfied with the Fed's successive increases in short-term interest rates, which led to a sharp rise in long-term interest rates, but after studying the situation, it believed that the Fed's approach could keep the U.S. economy at a sustained, moderate level of growth of 2.5%-3%, which would be conducive to Clinton's 1996 election campaign, and thus gave its support to the Fed's decision.
But this temporary unanimity did not completely eliminate the differences between the two sides on financial policy. The first sign of this divergence came in the 1993 presidential economic report when economic advisers denied that the natural rate of unemployment had changed much since the early 1970s, emphasizing that the current unemployment rate far exceeded the natural rate. At the same time, it was claimed that it was unscientific to use the acceleration of inflation to show that the stimulus had outpaced the natural rate of unemployment, since there were many other factors affecting the acceleration of inflation. Another sign is the new vice chairman of the Federal Reserve with Keynesian views of Blinder and Greenspan in the annual meeting held by the Federal Reserve on the Federal Reserve's policy objectives in different ways. Blinder advocated that Western central banks take into account both inflation and employment when setting interest rate levels. Greenspan, on the other hand, advocated amending the Federal Reserve Act to make inflation control the sole objective of interest rate policy.
Clinton internal and external economic policy of the inherent contradiction
The implementation of nearly two years of Clinton's domestic and foreign economic policy should be given what kind of objective evaluation? First, Clinton's "activist" approach to government intervention has had a positive impact on the revitalization of the U.S. economy. Capitalist economic development to today rely solely on the invisible hand of the market regulation can not achieve a virtuous cycle of economic and balanced development. Neoconservatism in power for 12 years to implement the "laissez-faire" policy is the result of the national economy caused by large deficits in the palliative structural imbalance, and its adverse consequences have been exposed in the United States in the ninth recession. Clinton's move in the opposite direction is the requirement of the times. Secondly, Clinton's strategy of revitalizing the U.S. economy to eliminate structural imbalances, increase accumulation, expand investment, improve life, and strengthen international competitiveness as the goal of the U.S. economy can play a positive role. The policy itself is a better choice for the United States. Third, the U.S. economy is currently in a period of high, but this is related to the cyclical nature of economic operations, can not be attributed entirely to Clinton's policy, but the policy is obviously also playing a role.
Objective evaluation as such, then why the American people on Clinton's support rate of only 40%, and do not support him instead of 55%? (August 20, the U.S. "Time" and CNN television announced the results of a joint poll) This problem seems to have a variety of reasons. First, Clinton has suffered more setbacks in politics and diplomacy. There have been both poor decision-making and the complexities of the bipartisan struggle. Secondly, on the economic front, it should be said that there are also many inherent contradictions.
First, the ambitions have more than enough national strength contradiction
Successive U.S. presidents in order to compete for votes always wish more and less fulfillment, this is a common problem, Clinton can not jump out of this maze. "Activism" is to be backed up by national strength, but unfortunately Clinton inherited the big deficit mess left behind by the Reagan and Bush administrations, so his actions cannot help but be subject to many constraints. At this point he is in an unrecognizable position from the Kennedy and Johnson eras. One of the major reasons for the resistance to Clinton's health insurance reform is the lack of financial resources in the federal government.
Second, the reality of multi-polarization and the contradiction between the words and deeds of power politics
The global pattern after the Cold War has been multi-polar trend, and the United States, although still a super economic power, but the strength of the contrast is not as good as it used to be, and it has been very difficult for me to do what I want. However, the Clinton administration is still lagging behind the reality in terms of foreign economic policy, and it is still wielding the 301 stick. However, the reality is ruthless, the United States and its trading partners is no longer the United States unilateral charity or assistance relationship, but interdependence, mutual needs of the relationship. The imposition of unilateral sanctions will only result in a lose-lose situation, and the United States will not be benefited. This is one of the reasons why the Clinton administration has often hit a brick wall in international negotiations and has lost prestige.
Third, the contradiction between the reality of diversity and ideological narrow-mindedness
The Clinton administration emphasized the promotion of democracy and human rights in international economic cooperation. To dominate the world with American-style democracy and American definition of human rights is contradictory to the diverse ideologies of the world. Diverse ideologies stemmed from diverse economic bases and social systems, which blossomed, competed and competed peacefully, which was originally a good thing, whereas the United States was quick to accuse one country of totalitarian politics and another of authoritarianism, and to open the eyes of the so-called "political dissidents". This is beyond the international norm of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, which often leads to friction with many countries and the resulting obstacles, which also caused Clinton's prestige to suffer. It seems that Clinton wants to increase voter support, re-election to the White House, not only to improve the domestic politics and economy, but also to improve the relationship with the world's countries ****, where the abandonment of chauvinistic mentality is very important.