Comments on the domestic and foreign economic policies of the Clinton administration
Chen Baosen
Author’s affiliation: 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 are a country that has allowed too many methods to run its course for too long." "For 12 years, the economic theory of infiltration of interests has created a false prosperity on the mountain of federal debt. The result of national laissez-faire has caused so many American families, even families with two working parents, to no longer provide for their children. The American dream of improving life." This is Clinton's criticism of Reaganomics and the main basis for his determination to transform "laissez-faire" into "activism." Two years have passed in the blink of an eye. What is the progress of Clinton's reform of domestic and foreign economic policies? What are the results? This is a question of great interest to people. Let’s try to make a brief analysis.
Fiscal policy that has yielded initial results
In order to solve the large deficit problem plaguing the U.S. economy, Clinton prioritized reducing the federal deficit. To this end, he is determined to reduce the deficit by an additional $493 billion on top of the $500 billion deficit reduction reached by Bush and Congress in 1990. Among them, in the next five years, the total expenditure will be reduced by US$247 billion and tax revenue increased by US$246 billion. The tax increase was originally a swim against the current, but Clinton proposed a reasonable burden policy to put 90% of the tax increase on the shoulders of the top 6.5% of taxpayers. The increase in the income tax rate is limited to 1.2% of high-income earners. In this way, he won the support of most taxpayers and won a strategic victory. Still, passage of the budget bill would be tough, especially in the Senate, which almost turned into a deadlock without Gore's final vote. In order to show its determination and sincerity in reducing the deficit, the 1994 Budget Act froze expenditures for the 1994-1998 fiscal years at a level of US$548 billion (at current prices without deducting inflation factors), which was 25% lower than the nominal expenditures in 1993. billion dollars. This nominal expenditure is estimated based on the annual inflation rate of 2.8%. If the inflation rate is lower than expected, further reductions in expenditure will be made. This budget austerity includes the White House's demonstration of reducing the federal workforce by 100,000 people and delaying the living index adjustment of federal employee wages. In terms of entitlement programs, Medicare will be cut by $18 billion through 1998. After such efforts, it is expected that by 1998 fiscal expenditure will be reduced from US$1,825.5 billion before the cuts to US$1,738.2 billion, and fiscal revenue will increase from US$1,492.2 billion to US$1,550.8 billion. The fiscal deficit will accordingly drop from US$333.2 billion to US$187.4 billion, a reduction of US$145.8 billion, and its proportion of GDP will drop from 4% to about 2.2%. The Clinton administration called the fiscal policy adopted in 1993 a real and credible deficit reduction policy, and believed that this was the response from Wall Street that caused them to change their expectations for inflation, and the reason why long-term interest rates were able to fall. Taking 10-year government bonds as an example, the interest rate in 1992 before Clinton came to power was 7.01%, which was 103% higher than the three-month Treasury bill interest rate; by 1993, the former dropped to 5.87%, which was 103% higher than the three-month Treasury bill interest rate. The ratio dropped to 92%. In 1994, in order to carry out macroeconomic control, the Federal Reserve continuously raised short-term interest rates, which naturally affected long-term interest rates. But long-term interest rates have risen much more slowly than short-term rates, and as of July 1994, 10-year government bonds were only 66% higher than 3-month Treasury bills. The decline in long-term interest rates is beneficial to business investment and consumer purchases of real estate and consumer durables. The Clinton administration believes that the reduction in military spending and the increase in taxes in its fiscal policy have a negative effect on economic growth, but the decline in long-term interest rates has an offsetting effect on stimulating the economy. This is an important reason why the U.S. economy performed well in 1993-1994.
Investment policies focusing on the future
The important difference in economic policies between the Clinton administration and the Reagan and Bush administrations lies not in the fiscal policy of deficit reduction but in the investment policy for the future. The activist Clinton administration declared to the people: "Shifting the focus of federal spending from consumption to investment is the hallmark of this administration's economic policy. We are not only committed to controlling government spending, but also directing it to more productive uses."
Clinton first emphasized investment in human resources. Its purpose is to improve the quality of the U.S. workforce to cope with increasingly fierce international economic competition. A $37.8 billion four-year "Lifelong Learning Initiative" was proposed in the 1994 federal budget. These include the Head Start program for mentally handicapped children; the Goal 2000 program to improve the performance of teachers and students in the United States; the School-to-Work Transition program, in which the Department of Education and the Department of Labor cooperate to provide vocational training for high school students; and help students enter college and National service programs that give students the opportunity to serve society and gain career skills; loan reform programs that lower loan interest rates to help more young Americans attend college; and retraining programs for unemployed workers.
The most innovative of these programs is the National Service Program. First, the state provides participants with below-market wages and an annual education subsidy of up to $4,725 to help participants receive valuable vocational training while receiving a college or junior college education. This is paid for by the government because employers are unwilling to pay for learning, fearing that the money will be wasted if the employee quits. Second, this plan is implemented by state and local governments according to local conditions, solving the problem of local governments needing social services but having no funds. Third, the National Service Program provides all Americans with dual opportunities to earn wages and obtain training in a variety of occupations, which was difficult for them to achieve in the past. This program will have 20,000 participants in 1994 and 100,000 every year thereafter.
The second aspect of the investment plan is infrastructure. The Clinton administration formulated a four-year, $48 billion plan to rebuild the United States. Clinton believes that the United States has long been seriously in debt to public infrastructure. The Department of Transportation estimates that almost 20 percent of highways are in poor or marginal condition, 20 percent of bridges have structural deficiencies, and 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 planned investments in public infrastructure will bring substantial benefits to the national economy. The plan to rebuild America also includes a four-year, $8 billion investment in improving water quality, protecting the environment, protecting natural resources, forest research, housing and community development, and rural development. The third aspect of the investment plan is science and technology. Technology investment accounts for a large proportion of the plan to rebuild America. The Clinton administration believes that physical capital is not the decisive factor or even the most important factor in improving productivity. In the long run, productivity improvements and improvements in living standards mainly depend on technological progress. Judging from the history of progress in industrialized countries, what matters is working smarter rather than working harder. But technological change and progress depend on new discoveries made by scientists and engineers in laboratories and factory floors. The capital and intellectual investment they undertake in the scientific research is enormous. A large amount of scientific research and development in the United States relies on private enterprises, but supportive and basic research has long been considered a legal function of the government because information has spillover effects. This means that the skills a company acquires through scientific research will quickly spread to other companies, making other companies cheaper while the innovators receive very limited returns. It is estimated that the capital return rate on scientific research and development is as high as 50%-100%, but in fact innovative companies receive less than half. Therefore, the Clinton administration asked Congress to extend tax deductions for research and experimentation and increase investment in collaborative research with industry. Add dozens of new manufacturing technology promotion stations to accelerate the invention and promotion of new technologies, and wait until the technology matures before the market mechanism can play a role.
How to transform national defense research and development is an important policy consideration of the Clinton administration.
With the massive cuts in defense spending, should the government reduce scientific research expenditures in the field of defense, or shift this expenditure to civilian technology? Clinton thought the latter was a wise choice. Therefore, the government has decided to shift the scientific research strength and national laboratories of the Ministry of National Defense to cooperate with industry for scientific research and development.
The U.S. Information Superhighway plan, which has attracted widespread attention around the world, is the halo of the Clinton administration's technology policy. This program is primarily a government initiative but not a government funding. The "Information Infrastructure Task Force", headed by Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and attended by Vice President Al Gore and Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers Tyson, as well as a group of economic, technical, legal experts and representatives from the telecommunications industry, is working intensively. The plan is for the federal government to be responsible for the overall design, and for industry to invest in and be responsible for construction and operation. The federal government is currently working to amend the Communications Act of 1934, requiring the complete elimination of unnecessary restrictions on various telecommunications methods such as television, cable TV, telephones and satellites while safeguarding the interests of consumers, and encouraging industry mutual cooperation and competition. The task force has now submitted three draft laws to Congress. The new law has yet to be discussed and approved by Congress. Clinton's investment plan focusing on the future reflects the new attitude of the new administration. But none of the measures it has taken have immediate results. So it doesn't add much weight to the president's approval rating.
Social welfare policy full of resistance
Reforming the current health insurance system in the United States is the focus of the Clinton administration's social welfare policy. In this year's Presidential Economic Address, Clinton said: "The United States today spends more on health care relative to the size of its economy than any advanced industrial nation. Yet we insure only a smaller portion of the population, and we insure an important percentage of the overall population." Health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality lag behind. More than 15 percent of Americans—nearly 39 million people—were uninsured as of 1992, and tens of millions more will be underinsured or will lose their jobs. Loss of insurance. At the same time, health care costs continue to rise, increasing medical expenses and insurance premiums for American families, exacerbating the budget crisis at all levels of government. "This is a true portrayal of the current health insurance situation in the United States. Clinton's health care reform plan submitted to Congress focuses on addressing four areas. First, there are tens of millions of Americans who do not have health insurance; second, the private insurance industry charges too high for people with poor health; third, there is a lack of effective competition in current health insurance, causing hospitals and patients to not care about costs; Fourth, insurance expenditure has become an unbearable burden for the government budget. To this end, Clinton proposed in his reform plan: (1) Provide health insurance for all Americans starting from January 1, 1998, so that every American can enjoy routine outpatient, hospitalization, emergency, preventive, and prescription dispensing services , Rehabilitation, Home Health and Nursing, Laboratory and Diagnostic. The treatment of mental illness and various vices will also be included in health plans to a limited extent; (2) States are required to establish "health care alliances" for large consumer groups, which will collect insurance premiums and negotiate health plans with hospitals and insurance companies on a competitive basis , and is also responsible for administrative expenses. All companies with fewer than 5,000 employees must purchase insurance through health care alliances; (3) Employers are required to pay at least 80% of the average health insurance cost for unmarried workers and 55% of the average health insurance cost for workers’ families. However, companies with less than 5,000 employees must not spend more than 7.9% of total wages on health insurance. Enterprises with fewer than 75 employees and an average salary of US$24,000 or less are eligible for government subsidies; (4) Tax increase. Increase the cigarette tax from the current 24 cents per pack to 99 cents, impose a 1% payroll tax on companies with 5,000 or more workers that do not participate in "insurance unions" and allow health unions to add an additional 2.5% to insurance premiums The apportionment is used for administrative expenses; (5) After 2000, the annual increase in health insurance premiums shall be limited to no more than the inflation rate, and an upper limit shall be set for the government's health care expenditures.
This plan was proposed on October 27, 1993. Around this planned democracy, the Communist Party and the two parties launched a fierce offensive and defensive battle.
Minority Leader *** and Congressman Dole, House Majority Leader Democratic Congressman Gephardt, and Senate Majority Leader Democratic Congressman Mitchell all proposed their own amendments. The difference between Gephardt's plan and Clinton's plan is to delay the implementation of universal health care by one year. The government's main tax levy is to increase the cigarette tax by 45%, and in addition to impose a 2% sales tax on all insurance payments; companies with less than 100 employees can participate in the government's insurance plan named "Medical Care Part III"; there is no requirement to organize "insurance" alliance". The medical expenses of the private pharmaceutical industry will not be controlled before 2000. His position is clearly a step back from Clinton's plan. But it still adheres to the principle of universal health care. Even if such concessions are made, it is estimated that 70 votes are needed to pass the plan.
On August 3, the same day as Gephardt, Mitchell also proposed his own plan. It's more modest than Gephardt's plan. It only requires that 95% of Americans have health insurance by 2000; it does not force states to establish health care alliances; its funding mainly relies on cutting medical care and medical relief expenditures, and it no longer requires employers to bear 80% of insurance premiums; after 2002 If 95% of Americans cannot be covered by universal insurance, employers are required to help workers pay insurance premiums in some states; for businesses with less than 25 employees, the employer will bear 50% of the insurance premiums, and for employers with fewer than 25 employees, the employer will be required to pay insurance premiums. It does not bear insurance premiums; the biggest tax increase is a 1.75% surcharge on health insurance and a consumption tax on guns and ammunition. In addition, the insurance premiums for wealthy elderly people who receive medical care are increased. Whether this plan can be passed depends on 10 Democratic senators who are still on the fence.
The plan of Republican Congressman Dole is obviously in opposition to Clinton. Its plan verbally aims at making health insurance available to all people in the United States. In fact, it will exclude a large part of the poor from health insurance and only provide subsidies to the poorest uninsured workers. It is allowed but not required. Organizations such as the Business and Individual Organization Insurance Alliance; no employer or individuals required to purchase insurance; businesses with 2 to 50 workers will be able to purchase federal employee health benefits insurance. No tax will be increased; the original provision of 25% tax deduction for self-employed persons paying insurance premiums will be increased to 100%; there will be no price control on medical expenses.
If you compare the above four plans, you can see that the fundamental differences between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party are whether to have universal health insurance; who should bear the cost and whether to control the growing health problem. Insurance expenses. These issues involve the interests of tens of millions of people who have not yet enjoyed health insurance, the interests of business owners, and the vested interests of the health care industry and insurance companies. Clinton obviously wants to seize the banner of safeguarding the interests of the former, while Dole stands on the side of safeguarding the interests of the latter. The Gephard and Mitchell plan attempted to make certain concessions while maintaining the basic spirit of the Clinton plan. Mitchell currently says he is confident he can reach an agreement with moderates on a limited reform package. But with Congress approaching a recess, that prospect has dimmed. It is reported that Clinton has sent a pessimistic signal that he will no longer regard health insurance reform as the focus of this year's congressional session, and also stated that he will veto any bill that does not include universal health care as a content. It seems that the health care system that was once promoted as the banner of Clinton's reform has been stranded due to resistance from all sides, at least this year. The outcome will be known until next year.
Aggressive trade policy
Clinton’s foreign trade policy has both inherited and new features. What we have inherited are two major changes from the Reagan and Bush administrations: first, the shift from free trade to fair trade, using protectionism in the name of fair trade; second, from multilateralism to bilateralism, using bilateralism to promote multilateralism. The new characteristics of the Clinton administration's foreign trade policy: First, it emphasizes improving the country's competitiveness and regards expanding exports as the only way to increase workers' wages and revitalize the U.S. economy. The second is to internationalize "activism" and not hesitate to use the big stick of "sanctions" to open up the international market.
In the field of trade, there are two things that Clinton is proud of as his achievements: first, the establishment of the North American Free Trade Area; second, the long-running Uruguay Round negotiations were finally completed at the last minute.
The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement was not only a success in bilateral negotiations, but also strengthened Clinton's position in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference and the Uruguay Round negotiations. So Clinton was extremely proud when the agreement passed Congress. The significance of establishing the North American Free Trade Area cannot only be seen in the complementary geo-economic advantages of the United States, Canada and Mexico. More importantly, it is part of the United States' global strategy and is the United States' defense against Japan and Europe in the battle for the economic triangle. And build a strong bridgehead for yourself. After taking this step, the next step is to establish the "American Economic Circle" and the "Pacific Community" from north to south, including the entire Western Hemisphere. Naturally, the realization of this overall strategic intention cannot be achieved overnight, but as long as the United States always takes the initiative in this process and firmly grasps leadership, it can ensure that it gains a dominant position over Japan and Europe in the struggle to seize the American and Asian markets.
Clinton's role in NAFTA was to eliminate interference from most Democrats, labor unions and environmentalists and promote the signing of the agreement, which was achieved through the signing of three side agreements.
In terms of labor protection, the North American Labor Cooperation Agreement was signed, which requires the prohibition of child labor, health and safety standards, and minimum wages. In addition, the Mexican government has also pledged to link the increase in the minimum wage with the growth of labor productivity. The United States also reserves the right to use Section 301 of the 1974 U.S. Trade Act on labor issues.
In terms of environmental protection, the "North American Environmental Protection Council" and offices were established. Developed a ten-year Border Environment Plan to comprehensively address air, soil and water quality, and hazardous waste management. Established two agencies to fund environmental protection infrastructure along the U.S.-Canada border.
After all these twists and turns, the North American Free Trade Agreement was finally signed on November 17, 1993. The near-term benefit it brings to the United States is the expansion of exports. According to statistics, in 1991, the United States exported US$422 billion in goods, creating 7.2 million jobs, of which exports to Canada and Mexico were US$118 billion, creating 2.1 million jobs. By 1995, as U.S. exports of capital goods to Mexico increase, 175,000 more jobs will be created. By then, 1 million people in the United States will be employed in the U.S. export industry to Mexico. While increasing employment, wages will also increase. According to statistics, the per capita wage in the US export industry is now 17% higher on average than in other industries. The success of the Uruguay Round negotiations was also regarded by Clinton as his own achievement, because the U.S. negotiation strategy played a decisive role. The protracted negotiation reflects not only the conflicts between the United States, Japan and Europe, but also the conflict of interests between developed countries led by the United States and developing countries. Reaching an agreement will benefit all countries in the world, but the United States is obviously the biggest winner.
In addition to tariff reductions, the first thing that is of most interest to the United States is to gradually bring agricultural trade under the jurisdiction of the GATT principles within six years. European countries have committed to convert non-tariff barrier quotas into tariffs and reduce them by 36%, while reducing agricultural product price subsidies by 20%. Although this result still falls short of the United States' requirement to completely eliminate agricultural subsidies within 10 years, it is finally a big step forward; second, the basic principles of service trade are included in the new services trade agreement for the first time; third, Intellectual property issues have also been included in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for the first time. All countries have unanimously promised to protect trade-related patents, trademarks and copyrights and punish counterfeiting. The fourth is to include trade-related investment measures in the agreement and require the gradual elimination of trade-related investment measures. Restrictions on Foreign Investment. These four issues involve major interests in U.S. foreign economic and trade activities. However, it has not been involved in previous GATT negotiations. The United States has placed great emphasis on these issues and made significant progress in the negotiations on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Area and the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Area.
The so-called bilateral promotion of multilateralism is to use these negotiation results to strengthen the United States' position in the GATT negotiations. This purpose was reflected in the final outcome of the Uruguay Round negotiations. However, from the perspective of Americans, this is only the beginning, and it has not yet fully achieved the United States' aspirations.
The United States initially opposed the establishment of the World Trade Organization, but eventually made concessions. What the United States is worried about is that after the organization takes effect, the United States will have to abide by the organization's arbitration in trade frictions and will no longer be able to rely on the domestic law of the United States to wield the big stick of Section 301. The deputy U.S. Trade Representative claimed in Congressional testimony that after the new World Trade Organization takes effect, the United States will still be able to take unilateral actions against so-called "unfair trading countries." He said that "the new trade system will not weaken the effective implementation of US trade laws, especially the implementation of Section 301 and anti-dumping laws." The face of power politics is fully revealed.
Although the United States gained a lot from the Uruguay Round negotiations, it was not able to fully satisfy the appetites of various domestic interest groups. For example, service industries such as films and audio-visual products have not been included in the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade due to the firm resistance of some countries. As another example, the financial industry and telecommunications industry are also excluded from the agreement. Shipping is not included in the scope of the agreement due to the protectionism of the US shipping industry. In terms of textiles, the quota system of the Multi-Fiber Agreement will be eliminated in three steps before 2005, which is beneficial to developing countries. However, in terms of reducing high tariffs, the United States has not gone to the level that developing countries hope to achieve.
The United States, with the support of France, had requested the inclusion of "social clauses" in the agreement, which would link labor interests with international trade standards. The ASEAN countries immediately saw through the West's attempt to use social clauses to force developing countries to either increase their labor costs to an agreed-upon minimum level, or to impose punitive special tariffs because their production costs were much lower than those of the West, and launched a joint boycott. An agreement was reached to refer the issue to a future World Trade Organization for discussion, thus breaking the deadlock.
Controversial financial policies
The four major policies mentioned above were proposed by President Clinton in the 1994 Presidential Economic Report as the overall economic strategy of the Clinton administration. Financial policy is not included because in the U.S. economic system the Federal Reserve System is led by Congress. In practice, however, the president still has significant influence over financial policy. During the two years of Clinton's administration, financial policy experienced a transition from lowering interest rates to stimulate economic recovery to raising interest rates to prevent inflation. Following the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee's decision to raise the federal funds rate from 3% to 3.25% on February 4, 1992, it was further raised to 3.5% on March 22. On April 1 and 8, it increased to 3.75%. On May 17, a further step was taken to raise the federal funds rate to 4.5% and the discount rate from 3% to 3.5%. Four consecutive interest rate hikes have had a huge impact on the U.S. economy and have aroused heated debate.
This decision of the Federal Reserve is mainly based on the so-called "natural unemployment rate". The "Federal Reserve Act" passed in the early years set "promoting maximum employment" as one of the policy goals of the Federal Reserve. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act passed in 1978 stipulated that maximum employment should be an unemployment rate not exceeding 4%. But the monetary school believes that there is a natural rate of unemployment for which monetary policy has no effect. In their view, due to changes in economic conditions in recent years, the natural unemployment rate should be 6%-6.5% instead of 4%. If policymakers ignore the natural unemployment rate and insist on achieving the 4% target, they will inevitably push the economy beyond its potential capacity, which will only cause inflation and ultimately lead to slowed economic growth and unemployment. A sharp increase in the rate. They believe that the U.S. unemployment rate dropped to 6.5% from 7.4% in 1992 in February this year, and dropped to 6.0% in May. In addition, equipment utilization rate and economic growth rate are also close to the warning line, so tightening monetary policy is necessary. The Federal Reserve calls this tightening policy neutral monetary policy, meaning it neither stimulates nor hinders economic growth.
The Federal Reserve’s fourth increase in interest rates has caused great controversy in society.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce blames the financial community on Wall Street for not sacrificing the business community on Main Street for its own interests. The AFL-CIO also issued a statement saying that while there are still 8.4 million unemployed people in the United States and 6.6 million people working part-time jobs, the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to pour cold water on the economy, which will only make the unemployed unable to find jobs. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on May 27, asking Greenspan to explain his reasons for raising interest rates. The focus of the debate is why the Fed wants to put the brakes on the economy when the U.S. economy has just improved and there is no sign of inflation. At the hearing, lawmakers asked Greenspan to guarantee that he would not raise interest rates in the future.
One month after this interest rate increase, due to the expansion of the trade deficit with Japan, the ratio of the US dollar to the Japanese yen in the foreign exchange market fell below the 1:100 mark on June 21. This puts the Federal Reserve in a dilemma between raising interest rates to save the dollar's decline and maintaining interest rates to prevent an economic downturn. After two months of observation and thinking, the Federal Reserve eliminated its concerns about the latter and made the decision to raise the federal funds rate to 4.75% and the discount rate to 4% on August 16. Federal Reserve officials claim that this interest rate level is compatible with the potential economic growth of the United States.
The Clinton administration was initially dissatisfied with the Federal Reserve's continuous increases in short-term interest rates, resulting in a surge in long-term interest rates. However, after research, it believed that the Federal Reserve's approach could maintain the U.S. economy at 2.5%-3%. Continued moderate growth was beneficial to Clinton's campaign in 1996 and thus supported the Federal Reserve's decision-making.
But this temporary agreement cannot completely eliminate the differences between the two sides on financial policies. The first sign of this divergence was the 1993 Presidential Economic Address in which economic advisers denied that the natural rate of unemployment had changed significantly since the early 1970s, emphasizing that the current unemployment rate far exceeded the natural rate. At the same time, it is unscientific to claim that the acceleration of inflation shows that measures to stimulate the economy exceed the natural unemployment rate, because there are many other factors that affect the acceleration of inflation. Another sign is that the new Fed Vice Chairman Blinder, who has Keynesian views, and Greenspan expressed different views on the Fed's policy objectives at the Fed's annual meeting. Blinder advocated that Western central banks should consider both inflation and employment issues when setting interest rates. Greenspan advocated amending the Federal Reserve Act to control inflation as the sole goal of interest rate policy.
Inherent contradictions in Clinton's domestic and foreign economic policies
What kind of objective evaluation should be given to Clinton's domestic and foreign economic policies that have been implemented for nearly two years? First, Clinton's "activist" government intervention approach is of positive significance to the revitalization of the U.S. economy. The capitalist economy has developed to this day and it is no longer possible to achieve a virtuous cycle and balanced economic development by relying solely on the invisible hand of market regulation. The result of the "laissez-faire" policy implemented by the neoconservatives for 12 years is the structural imbalance of the national economy caused by large deficits. Its consequences have been fully exposed in the ninth economic recession in the United States. It is the call of the times for Clinton to do the opposite. Second, Clinton's strategy to revitalize the U.S. economy aims to eliminate structural imbalances, increase accumulation, expand investment, improve lives, and strengthen international competitiveness, which can play a positive role in the U.S. economy. As far as the policy itself is concerned, it is the better choice for the United States at present. Third, the U.S. economy is currently in a period of upsurge, but this is related to the cyclical nature of the economy and cannot be entirely attributed to Clinton's policies, but the policies obviously play a role.
Objective evaluation says so, so why is it that the support rate of the American people for Clinton is only 40%, while those who do not support him account for 55%? (Results of a joint opinion poll released by the US "Times" and CNN TV on August 20) There seem to be many reasons for this problem. First of all, Clinton suffered a lot of setbacks in politics and diplomacy. There are mistakes in decision-making and complicated factors in the struggle between the two parties. Secondly, it should be said that there are many internal contradictions in the economic aspect.
First, the contradiction between high ambition and insufficient national strength
In order to win votes, previous US presidents have always promised more and fulfilled less. This is a common problem, and Clinton cannot escape this. Unruly. "Activism" must be backed by national strength. Unfortunately, Clinton inherited the large deficit mess left by the Reagan and Bush administrations, so his actions had to be subject to many constraints. At this point, his situation is no longer the same as it was in the days of Kennedy and Johnson. One of the important reasons why Clinton's health insurance reform faces so many obstacles is the lack of financial resources of the federal government.
Second, the contradiction between the reality of multipolarity and the words and deeds of power politics
The global landscape after the Cold War has shown a trend of multipolarity. Although the United States is still a super economic power, its strength Compared with the past, it is difficult to go our own way. However, the concept lags behind the reality, and the Clinton administration is still ready to wield the 301 stick in foreign economic policy. However, the reality is ruthless. The relationship between the United States and its trading partners is no longer one of unilateral charity or assistance from the United States, but a relationship of interdependence and mutual demand. Imposing unilateral sanctions will only hurt both sides, and the United States will not gain. This is one of the reasons why the Clinton administration often encounters obstacles in international negotiations and thus loses its prestige.
Third, the contradiction between diverse reality and ideological intolerance
The Clinton administration emphasizes the promotion of democracy and human rights in international economic cooperation. To unify the world with American democracy and American definitions of human rights is contradictory to the diverse ideologies of the world. Diversified ideologies come from diverse economic foundations and social systems. They bloom, compete with each other, and compete peacefully. This is a good thing. However, the United States frequently accuses this country of totalitarianism and that country of authoritarianism. The "dissident" opened his eyes. This goes beyond the international norm of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs, often causing friction and resulting setbacks with many countries, which also causes Clinton's prestige to suffer. It seems that if Clinton wants to increase voter support and retain the White House, he must not only do a good job in domestic politics and economy, but also improve international relations with countries around the world. It is very important to abandon the mentality of great power here.