Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: In a 300 word paper explain why the participative or democratic leadership style would be most influential and beneficial in an organization?s management practices in order to lead change in an organization. Be sure to address both the strengths and the weaknesses of the selected theory, styles, and skills. Justify your position with supporting references

Essay Instructions: This paper is about the election of 1992. It should focus on Clinton's platform on the economy and how he used this to win the election. it should prove that it was dificult to beat the incumbent president george bush. It should show that president bush was popular from desert storm. if possible it should also show that clinton was a sacrifice that the democratic party used shure he would lose.

The paper must be at least 4 full pages double spaced in 12 point font!!!!

this paper must use only primary sources!!!

the professor said the following:
creative and original thinking about American history and society will be rewarded with high marks. You will be required to utilize primary sources to write your paper. You can weave general historical interpretation into your paper, but secondary sources are discouraged for this assignment.

i have included several newspaper articles. Each of them must be used in the paper and cited on the works cited page. also please cite a couple more sources including My life by Bill Clinton

Newspaper articles:



Copyright 1992 Union Leader Corp.
The Union Leader (Manchester, NH)

November 1, 1992 Sunday ALL EDITIONS

SECTION: SECTION B Pg. 3

LENGTH: 1059 words

HEADLINE: (COLUMN: DOME) Look for Bush To Win Re-Election on Tuesday

BODY:
IN A DRAMATIC climax to what has been a weird and volatile political year, President George Bush will not only carry New Hampshire but win re-election.

The razor-thin come-from-behind miraculous victory will stun pollsters, pundits and national media who for six months have insisted that you will vote for Bill Clinton.

It will occur because a lot of people will finally realize the Arkansas Governor is stretching credibility by out-promising "readmy lips" Bush. Clinton promises to spend billions, generate only high-wage jobs, provide affordable health care for everybody, a college education for all, and tax only the rich. Yet when it comes to a really tough issue he can't seem to make a firm decision and many fear Clinton's performance in a Desert Storm or Middle East crisis situation.

And "let's get under the hood and then hike the gas tax 50-cents" Ross Perot will be enough of a spoiler to reopen the White House door for Bush. We're convinced that one-liner Perot - whose only campaign trail is paid TV - has enough money to buy anything except a Presidential election.

Sure, our forecast is going out on a limb when everybody has picked Clinton, but we remember when we said President Gerald Ford would edge Ronald Reagan in the 1976 New Hampshire Presidential primary and Ford did it by just 1,587 votes in the closest primary ever.

It's a tough choice Tuesday and, if you're part of the "let's blame Bush because what has he done for me today" crowd looking for the quick fix, you're bound to be sadly disappointed.

Here in New Hampshire, as about 521,000 go to the polls, Bush will hold on to win, 43 percent to 39 for Clinton, 17 for Perot and one percent for Libertarian Andre Marrou.

In a classic income tax referendum, Granite Staters will elect Republican former attorney general Steve Merrill governor with 52.4 percent over a strong challenge by Democrat state Representative Deborah Arnie Arnesen with 45 percent. Libertarian Miriam Luce will runthird with 2.6 percent and, because of the intensity of the Merrill-Arnesen fight, fail to attain the 3 percent necessary to retain future ballot status for her party.

The state's first major party female nominee for governor, Arnesen advocates a 6 percent state income tax package promising property tax relief and more money for education. But the details of her tax and any guarantee that the money won't be used for other things won't come until after the election and enactment of the new tax. Merrill will veto such a levy, insisting that such a tax will only add to the burden, trigger more spending and delay economic recovery.

Succeeding Republican U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman will be outgoing Gov. Judd Gregg who will top Democrat John Rauh 52 to 42 percent, with Libertarian Katherine Alexander, and independents sharing the rest of the votes.

Republican First District Congressman Bill Zeliff will win a second term 50.5 to 46.5 percent over a strong bid by Democrat Bob Preston with Libertarian Knox Bickford and independents sharing the residue.

Democrat Second District Congressman Dick Swett will gain his second term 57 to 42 percent over Republican Bill Hatch with Libertarian John Lewicke bringing up the rear.

THE FIVE-MEMBER, all-Republican Executive Council will remain firmly in GOP control with an eighth term for Ray Burton of Bath in the First District, Bob Hayes of Concord the new Second District member, a fourth term for Third District councilor Ruth Griffin of Portsmouth, a fourth term for Fourth District councilor Earl Rinker and a record 11th term for Fifth District councilor Bernard Streeter of Nashua.

The current 13-11 Republican edge in the 24-member state Senate will become 14-10.

District 1: Democrat Carole Lamirande of Berlin will edge out GOP nominee Frederick King of Colebrook in a tight race to succeed retiring Democrat Sen. Otto Oleson of Gorham.

District 2: Democrat Sen. Wayne King of Rumney will survive a tough fight with GOP conservative Glenn Sharp of Bristol and get a third term.

District 3: Republican Ken MacDonald of Wolfeboro will top Democrat Lee Webb of Sandwich to succeed retiring Sen. Roger Heath of Center Sandwich.

District 4: Republican Sen. Leo Fraser of Pittsfield gets a second term. District 5: GOP Sen. Ralph Hough of Lebanon for an eighth term.

District 6: Conservative Republican George Lovejoy edges Democrat Charles Grassie Jr. to succeed Senate President Ed Dupont in Rochester.

District 7: GOP Sen. Dave Currier of Henniker gets a third term.

District 8: Democrat Sen. George Disnard for a fourth term.

District 9: A fifth term for GOP Sen. Sheila Roberge of Bedford.

District 10: A 12th term for Senate dean Junie Blaisdell of Keene.

District 11: GOP conservative Dave Wheeler of Milford succeeds GOP Sen. Charlie Bass of Peterborough whom he dumped in the primary.

District 12: Democrat Barbara Baldizar of Nashua who defeated Democrat Sen. Barbara Pressly in the primary, tops GOP Tom Stawacz of Hollis.

District 13: Democrat Debora Pignatelli wins over GOP Don Davidson for the Nashua seat of retiring Democrat Sen. Mary Nelson. District 14: A second term for GOP conservative Tom Colantuono of Londonderry.

District 15: A sixth term for Democrat sounding, GOP Sen. Susan McLane of Concord.

District 16: A seventh term for GOP Sen. Eleanor Podles in a tight test with Democrat Ron Machos in Manchester.

District 17: GOP Jack Barnes of Raymond succeeds GOP Sen. Gordon Humphrey.

District 18: A second term for Democrat Sen. John King of Manchester.

District 19: A second term for GOP Sen. Rick Russman of Kingston.

District 20: Democrat Ann Bourque edges GOP Bob Ouelette to succeed retiring Democrat Sen. Jim St. Jean of Manchester.

District 21: A second term for Democrat Sen. Jeannne Shaheen of Madbury.

District 22: A fourth term for GOP Sen. Joe Delahunty of Salem, odds-on favorite for Senate President.

District 23: A second term for Democrat Sen. Beverly Hollingworth of Hampton in a tough fight with GOP Kathleen Rush.

District 24: Former GOP House Speaker Doug Scamman of Stratham upsets Democrat freshman Sen. Burt Cohen of New Castle.

Although not necessarily our personal preferences, that's the way we think it will go, but you can make your candidate win by voting Tuesday.

Copyright 1992 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

View Related Topics

November 29, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section 1; Page 26; Column 1; National Desk

LENGTH: 2009 words

HEADLINE: How the President Lost: a Campaign of Disorganization and Disappointment

BYLINE: By MICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Nov. 28

BODY:
By the time the Republican Party massed in Houston last August for its convention, President Bush's re-election campaign appeared a thoroughly snakebit enterprise. In just eight months it had been jolted by an ugly primary fight, a third-party challenge, two White House staff shake-ups, an urban riot and a seemingly endless economic slump. Bill Clinton led in the polls by 15 points. Yet the President, his political advisers say, was utterly, serenely certain of victory come fall.

It was the advisers who were starting to perspire.

As campaign officials told it in interviews this month, the Bush re-election effort was struggling with bouts of breathtaking incoherence. The convention had been planned largely by party officials outside the control of the campaign. The campaign itself was operating without help from the White House. The White House was so disorganized that simple political directions changed daily, and officials took seven months to hire a speechwriter for the President.

As for Mr. Bush, he was balking, refusing with a stubbornness born of pride and overconfidence to do what a candidate must: retail himself and his policies through the tawdry practice of politics.

Eleven weeks remained until Election Day. Mr. Bush still had $40 million to spend on advertisements, a week-long convention and the debates in which to showcase his candidacy, and he had just persuaded James A. Baker 3d to return and impose order on chaos.

There was still hope. Many Republican strategists believed that Mr. Bush held the upper hand, even in the dark days of August. "This campaign was very winnable until the late stages," said Mitch Daniels, an Indiana political adviser who was brought into the campaign at about that time.

"We didn't need the best strategy, or even the third or fourth best. All we needed was a strategy, period."

But there was no strategy, top campaign officials said, until the very end, when Mr. Bush finally threw himself wholeheartedly into the fray. And the lack of direction during the rest of the campaign manifested itself in every facet of the re-election effort.

Mr. Baker, while he imposed admirable mechanical order to the race, brought it neither purpose nor focus. The Republican convention killed off what should have been one of the campaign's major sales pitches and alienated millions of voters with its right-wing oratory. The Bush advertising effort began in confusion, consumed three-quarters of the $55 million re-election budget, and nearly collapsed twice in disarray.

Amid it all, Mr. Baker and the campaign chairman, Robert M. Teeter, erred, many argue, by attacking Mr. Clinton without explaining to voters clearly why Mr. Bush was a better choice.

The Convention: Dismaying Voters




The Republican convention in August was a political showcase, but not, it turned out, for Mr. Bush.

Conceived in June, when Ross Perot's candidacy was plundering the Republicans' conservative base, the convention was intended to reassure right-wing voters of Mr. Bush's solidarity. It did so superbly. The trouble was that Mr. Perot dropped out of the race a month before the convention and Mr. Bush's problems now lay elsewhere, among suburban moderates and Reagan Democrats who were swarming to Mr. Clinton.

And moderates who heard the firebrand speeches of Mr. Bush's former primary rival, Patrick J. Buchanan, Marilyn Quayle and the television evangelist Pat Robertson fled in droves.

That might have been averted, aides said this month, had convention preparations been housed within Mr. Bush's campaign, as they were in 1988. But convention organizers this time were more independent, working with but not relying on Mr. Teeter's staff for explicit instructions.

The consequences were woefully obvious.

"We were overly preoccupied," said Jim Lake, who ran the campaign's communications operation. "We didn't write Pat Buchanan's speech. We didn't have editing rights over his speech. Very few people read the speech."

In fact, the Bush camp had no censorship rights over any convention speeches, something the political director, Mary Matalin, later called "a very serious mechanical breakdown."

"We were in a deep, deep hole after the convention," Ms. Matalin said. "Even if we'd had a coherent message then, we were spending our entire time denying that the Republican Party was a bunch of homophobic bigots."

The Advertising: Agreeing on Nothing




While party loyalists played at the Astrodome, Mr. Bush's top campaign advisers closeted themselves at the suburban Doubletree Hotel. The talk was of advertising: there was none.

Mr. Teeter had lured Madison Avenue's top talent months ago to a new advertising "agency," dubbed The November Company, whose sole task was to create Mr. Bush's television campaign commercials. Unfortunately, over an entire summer of debate, neither the campaign nor the advertising executives could agree on what the campaign should say.

The agency workers complained that campaign officials seemed unable to describe what they wanted. Instead, proposed commercials and even topics for commercials were dispatched to focus groups -- hand-picked assemblages of ordinary voters like middle-class housewives or blue-collar men -- who registered their approval or distaste by pressing small electronic buttons or talking to group leaders.

The result: advertisements perished by the score before their most powerful elements -- the narrator's voice, music, the pictures -- were ever heard or seen.

"They had the worst sort of client-agency relationship," said one of the members of the Bush advertising team. "Teeter was clearly dissatisfied with the work of The November Company. The November Company was very frustrated that nothing they thought was worth a damn was getting through."

The Strategy: A Message Is Found




Determined to break the creative logjam, the strategists at the Doubletree toiled for nine hours to produce a plan for how best to use their $40 million advertising budget to promote Mr. Bush in the 75 days remaining.

It was disarmingly simple: a three-week introduction to the President's second-term economic agenda; a few weeks to compare that agenda favorably to Mr. Clinton's higher-priced economic proposals, and a concluding barrage emphasizing Mr. Bush's experience and stature and maligning Mr. Clinton by comparison.

"What was killing the President was the impression that he was indifferent or insincere in his commitment to repair the economy," said Mr. Daniels, the Indiana adviser who was assigned to bridge the canyon between the campaign and its advertising team.

At last, a November Company commercial appeared -- a high-tech, upbeat sales pitch for the President's view of the economic future. Mr. Baker's aides repackaged a dog's breakfast of White House trade and fiscal policies into an "agenda for American renewal" that Mr. Bush unveiled to wide praise at the Detroit Economic Club on Sept. 10.

But except for banners at political rallies and boilerplate explanations in his campaign speeches, that was the last anyone saw of the agenda or the strategy from which it sprang.

The Attack: Forced to Retaliate




Ten days after the Detroit speech, Mr. Clinton released his first negative television campaign advertisement, portraying Mr. Bush as unconcerned about the economy and showing footage of him denying that the country was in a recession.

The judgment in the Bush camp, some strategists said, was that the President had run out of time for image-polishing and had to attack in return.

The trouble was that the leaders of the November Company found negative advertisements distasteful. In August, Mr. Baker had allowed Mr. Daniels to form a "B team" of advertising experts who would take on the task. But business summoned Mr. Daniels to Japan, and by late September, when most campaigns have reels of commercials at the ready, "our inventory was pretty slim -- like, nonexistent," said Robert Gardner, a San Francisco advertising executive who was involved with the campaign.

Mr. Baker called Sig Rogich, one of the brains behind the Reagan and Bush advertising campaigns in 1984 and 1988, who had become the American ambassador to Iceland.

Mr. Rogich immediately produced six commercials. He became the architect of the campaign's increasingly negative tone on television. "He took it over," Mr. Gardner said. "He gave it some leadership."

The Debates: Political Soap Opera




As the advertising effort underwent upheaval, a political soap opera was developing over what many saw as Mr. Bush's salvation -- the debates.

Mr. Baker and Mr. Teeter had abandoned conventional political wisdom: that a trailing candidate engages his foe in debate as soon and often as possible. Instead, they jousted with Mr. Clinton over the number and format of the debates, dragging the dispute onto the nation's front pages for most of September before settling on three meetings.

Aides were confounded by the dithering over what they viewed as an opportunity to match a real President with two pretenders in every sense of the word.

Mr. Perot, who had returned to the race on Oct. 1, was regarded as a wild card whose political impact was unpredictable, but the hope was that the debates would expose him as irascible and unworthy of serious support. Mr. Clinton tended to turn pedantic in debates. But the President, it was thought, relished such competitions and was at his relaxed best in town hall-style meetings and news conferences.

As cramming for the match-ups proceeded, however, Mr. Bush seemed disengaged, several aides said, and the image carried to the debates themselves. Except in the final debate, where he performed well, he sat passively as Mr. Clinton wooed the audience or Mr. Perot rattled on.

Mr. Perot's presence rankled Mr. Bush. "He understood why the organizers let Perot in, but he thought it was degrading," an adviser said. "He sure didn't consider Ross Perot his peer."

The Final Sprint: Focusing on Trust




Mr. Teeter had argued from the start that elections are decided in the final weeks, and that agonizing over strategy was is a waste of energy. Now came the test of that theory.

With three weeks left, the President trailed Mr. Clinton in campaign polls by as much as a dozen points. Mr. Bush's solution was to cancel the briefings he was given on the polls.

Armed with a new 20-minute speech, he boarded a train in Atlanta and slugged away at Mr. Clinton with his two best remaining weapons: taxes and trust.

For the first time in the year-long campaign, a seemingly rejuvenated President and his media advisers struck the same gong, relentlessly, for weeks in a row. And something strange happened: the polls showed Mr. Clinton losing popularity, and Mr. Bush gaining it daily, in big leaps of support. On Oct. 29, a campaign survey judged the Bush-Clinton race even, at 39 percent each, with momentum flowing to Mr. Bush.

The Telling Blow: Scandal's Impact

But the the tide reversed the next day. As Mr. Bush gave a speech in St. Louis, the prosecutor in the Iran-contra affair released a document that mentioned Mr. Bush and contradicted the President's statements about his knowledge of the scandal.

Mr. Clinton immediately questioned Mr. Bush's trustworthiness, Mr. Bush cried foul and the episode dominated the evening news. Mr. Clinton then gained five points in the Bush campaign's own polls and widened his lead over the weekend.

If the President felt mortally wounded, he apparently told no one. "He never entertained the possibility that he'd lose. I spent time with him," one aide said. "He never -- never -- said he thought he wouldn't win."

He did come close, once. It was on the morning of the election, as Mr. Bush stood in the Houstonian Hotel bantering with aides about the day's vote. Everyone was politely upbeat. Then there was a lull, and Mr. Bush quietly filled it.

"Well," he said to no one in particular. "Do you think we're all fooling ourselves?"

GRAPHIC: Graph: "Bush's Bumpy Ride to Defeat" shows favorable and unfavorable ratings for President Bush from 1/92 to 10/92 (Source: CBS/New York Times Poll)

LOAD-DATE: November 29, 1992
Copyright 1992 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

View Related Topics

October 30, 1992, Friday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 31; Column 6; Editorial Desk

LENGTH: 713 words

HEADLINE: On My Mind;
It's the Economy, Stupid

BYLINE: By A. M. ROSENTHAL

BODY:
Now that the campaign is almost over, the country owes the candidates gratitude for what Americans want so much -- a vacation from the realities of national life.

That might seem a crabby thought -- after all those months when the candidates kept lecturing the country about the economy.

"The economy, stupid," reads the sign in the office of Bill Clinton's campaign strategist. President Bush is boiling down the whole election to two words: trust and taxes. Ross Perot managed to do it in one -- deficit.

The attitude surveys convinced candidates that all that Americans cared about was the economy and how it translated into jobs. Ignore that and lose.

The surveys were probably right. So given the choice of lead, follow or get out of the way, the candidates trotted right behind the polls.

But something strange happened -- all the virtuous talk and position papers on the economy had a smothering, flattening-out effect on American reality and the American memory. It homogenized the very problems that a sturdier economy was supposed to cure. That allowed them to be comfortably diminished in our mind, priorities and conscience.

In April, when Los Angeles was burning, the country, in shock, literally prayed that this time our "leaders" would pay attention and do something, do something.

But look what happened, lamebrain: by summer Los Angeles was getting footnote political attention, barely.

Los Angeles was the result of economic and racial rage. Nonsense -- Los Angeles was the work of lawless hooligans looking for an excuse to riot. No -- Los Angeles was the result of both.

Take your pick. But one thing is sure -- everything that made for the Los Angeles riot still exists in cities around the country.

The mesmerized focus on broad-issue economics blunted the needle of national awareness that emergency social and law-enforcement action was imperative. That is dangerous.

Incidentally, whatever happened to the matter of racial tensions? Democrats are pushing race relations into the background because they do not want Jesse Jackson in the foreground. Republicans don't see political capital in talking about it at all. Mr. Perot is still recovering from the discovery that "you people" is not the way African-Americans prefer to be addressed.

Drugs, crime, a paralyzed justice system: candidates do put out some position papers. They don't get much attention, because they do not convey the horror.

Did anything from the candidates show they understood what "urban affairs" now means? What it is like to live in a neighborhood controlled by drug mobs and know they kill at whim or at random? Or where parents take their kids out of school to try to keep them from being shot down in the streets outside?

And which candidate or which position paper dealt with men and women with broken minds living, wandering and defecating in the streets?

The political professionals pound it into our heads that the rest of the world matters zero in this campaign -- no clout in surveys at all. Still, it is hard to believe that Americans really don't care whether the next Presidency would try to prevent Bosnians from being murdered or Somali children from walking about with swollen bellies, just because Bosnians and Somalis don't create jobs, except for foreign grave diggers.

Unpleasantly specific truths are not ignored -- just smoothed down, made less scary, by over-generalized economy talk. We are told repeatedly that unemployment is about 7.5 percent -- but rarely that it is at least triple that for teen-agers in ghettos.

The candidates explain that strengthening the whole economy will help us find money to deal with drugs, crime, violence, maybe even a few Bosnians and Somalis.

That's nice. But the candidates should explain something else. How do other democracies manage to have cleaner streets, safer neighborhoods and safer banks, less drugs, no guns, better medical insurance, fewer wreckages of tenements and people, without waiting until the complete grand, overall, very macro, big-picture economic problem is settled, by some unspecified superstrategy?

Maybe Presidential candidates will find out. Maybe they will think city, town and neighborhood economics, as well as national.

When? In 1996, stupid.

LOAD-DATE: October 30, 1992
Copyright 1992 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston Globe

November 13, 1992, Friday, City Edition

SECTION: NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1821 words

HEADLINE: Clinton lists steps on economy, may modify some plans;
THE TRANSITION Peter Gosselin of the Globe staff contributed from Washington to this report.

BYLINE: By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff

DATELINE: LITTLE ROCK, Ark.

BODY:
President-elect Bill Clinton vowed yesterday to act quickly on a series of taxation and job-creation proposals and to overturn limitations on abortion counseling, but he signaled publicly for the first time that some of his costliest measures may have to be modified or delayed as he "sets priorities" for his new administration.

Clinton said his initial legislative package would include a tax credit for business investments, which he said would create 500,000 new jobs, and at least a $ 20 billion increase in spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure. He left open the question of whether he would include his middle-income tax cut in the package, saying only that he had not backed away from anything in his campaign platform.

In his first news conference since the election, Clinton spoke in calm and measured tones as he portrayed himself as in no hurry to make transition decisions. He said he had not decided whom to name to any of the Cabinet posts. Clinton nonetheless made his firmest commitment yet to appoint Republicans and people who represent a cross-section of the country to top positions.

He did name 48 people, including a host of top campaign aides, to positions on his two-month transition team. The appointees included Professor Robert Reich of Harvard University as director of economy policy and the Democratic Leadership Council head, Al From, a centrist who helped write the blueprint for Clinton's presidential campaign, as the head of domestic policy.

Clinton, who will become the nation's 42d president, repeated that his first actions upon taking office would be to sign an executive order overturning the "gag rule" that restricts federally funded clinics from dispensing information about abortion and an order allowing Haitian refugees to remain in the United States until they get a hearing.

The president-elect repeated his oft-stated position that he would seek to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but he did not directly answer a question about the timetable. He said he would ask a group of advisers to give him a proposal, which he would consider at an unspecified date.

Clinton signaled that his first legislative priority will be to put as many of his programs as possible into a few massive bills, thus avoiding many votes on a series of separate bills. He said he was following the strategy of an unlikely role model, former President Reagan, who managed to get Congress to approve many of his tax cuts and higher defense appropriations in a few large bills.

But the Arkansas governor tied each pledge of decisive action yesterday to a qualifier, and appeared intent in his remarks on dampening expectations of speedy economic improvement that may have been built up by his campaign.

"I think the American people understand that these problems are of long duration and there won't be any overnight miracles," he said. "But I think they expect aggressive and prompt action and I'm going to give it to them."

Clinton said he would put forward a "shorter-term economic agenda" and then develop a long-term plan. He added, "I expect to keep the focus on these economic issues. And I'm not trying to scale back or scale down, or anything else."

At one point in the news conference, Clinton said he would have to "set priorities and to proceed with discipline," a phrase that is bound to spur speculation that he may delay some of his costliest campaign promises. He admitted that he may have to "modify" some proposals.

As for the question of how he might pay for new programs while reducing the deficit, Clinton said he is still convinced that he should reduce the deficit "gradually" while pushing major spending programs and tax cuts. Some economists have argued that a major deficit reduction package is needed immediately.

"We'll test it," Clinton said. "We'll see if I'm right. That's what the election was all about."

To spur growth, Clinton said during the campaign that he would boost public works spending by $ 20 billion a year to create jobs and improve the economy. Clinton did not respond to a question yesterday about whether he would increase the public works program to $ 50 billion, as some advisers have suggested.

Clinton also plans to cut defense spending by $ 60 billion, so some economists believe the president-elect's action would amount to shifting spending from defense to transportation, with little or no net increase in jobs.

Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist and campaign adviser, was asked whether Clinton's public works and business tax breaks would provide the economy with a quick lift. He said, "You'd get some. It won't be much, but it would probably be some."

In addition, Clinton said that he would seek quick congressional approval for an investment tax credit, a business tax break that he said would create an extra 500,000 jobs next year.

The credit would encourage companies to spend more on job-creating plant and equipment purchases by allowing them to cut their tax bills by 10 percent of the amount spent above a yet-to-be-decided baseline like their average spending in the past, according to Blinder.

With Vice President-elect Al Gore standing silently at his side throughout the news conference, Clinton sounded wistful at times about preparing to leave Little Rock. He spoke about how he was standing in his "favorite building," the white, colonnaded Old Statehouse, where he announced his candidacy 13 months ago and celebrated his victory nine days ago.

He spoke of how he loved being able to jog on the city streets and speak with "my constituents." And he spoke about his reluctance to enter "the bubble," the security net that surrounds a president and that dictates his every movement.

"You know, I'm an informal person," Clinton said. "I live in an atmosphere that is highly personal and informal where I know my friends and neighbors and my constituents can come up to me and talk to me on the street. I would hope that both Senator Gore and I would be able to maintain some greater level of ongoing personal contact with folks than is typically the case."

But asked if he was feeling overwhelmed by the responsibility of becoming president, Clinton said, "I'm having a wonderful time. I mean, it is an enormous responsibility, but I asked for it, and it's an indulgence to feel overwhelmed by it."

Keeping in check the fiery rhetoric that marked his campaign, Clinton spent more time praising Republicans than Democrats. At one point, Clinton praised President Bush's handling of foreign affairs, in contrast to the way Clinton the candidate harshly criticized Bush's dealings with Iraq before the Gulf War and his response to the warfare in partitioned Yugoslavia.

Clinton was also asked about the propriety of having Vernon Jordan as the chairman of his transition team while Jordan is making $ 50,000 a year as a director of a major tobacco company, RJR Nabisco.

After noting that Jordan is receiving no pay for his transition position, Clinton said Jordan would not be involved in corporate affairs during his two-month tenure and said Jordan would not have undue influence on Clinton's views about the tobacco industry.

"Those of you who are familiar with my record and my wife's public statements here at home would have little to be concerned about us being too close to the tobacco lobby," Clinton said.

He added: "Vernon Jordan is not going to pick these major people who serve in the health care positions. I am."

Clinton is scheduled to release his ethics guidelines today for members of his transition team.


GRAPHIC: PHOTO, Robert Reich faces reporters at Harvard after being named to the Clinton transition staff. / GLOBE STAFF PHOTO / JOHN TLUMACKI (Photo, page 1)

LOAD-DATE: November 14, 1992
Copyright 1992 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)

July 31, 1992, Friday

SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 18

LENGTH: 859 words

HEADLINE: Retooling Budgets, Taxes

BYLINE: Hazel Henderson; Hazel Henderson's latest book is "Paradigms in Progress." She is based in St. Augustine, Fla.

HIGHLIGHT:
Current federal processes and codes should give way to such innovations as an employment tax credit and 'green taxes'

BODY:
THE November election will likely swing on how to invigorate the ailing United States economy. Both the Clinton-Gore and the Bush-Quayle campaign platforms are faced with a rapidly changing, post-cold-war world and a US economy that no longer fits the old policy maps. The crying need of both campaigns is to reconceptualize the economy and rethink the federal budget and tax code.

As new maps are drawn, surprising new directions can emerge: for example, cutting income taxes and replacing them with more taxes on pollution (so-called "green taxes"), more user fees, corporate taxes and tariffs, and a restructured budget.

This approach may refocus the question: Where is all the money coming from to reinvest in our people, infrastructure, and global competitiveness - while creating more jobs and addressing a pressing backlog of social and environmental problems?

The Clinton-Gore answer is familiar: Raise taxes on the richest, close loopholes, increase some user fees, and emphasize investment over consumption in fiscal policy.

Mr. Bush still believes, despite mounting unemployment and the lowest interest rates since the Kennedy era, that "recovery is on its way." His classical "trickle-down" economics holds that jobs are best created by making investment more attractive to those who can invest (through better capital gains treatment, for example).

Both platforms, so far, embrace incrementalism. They call for more investment tax credits - in spite of a decade of evidence that such credits do little or nothing to increase investments or jobs.

Only an employment tax credit for each newly created domestic US job can rebalance the tax code. Clearly, employers and employees should be taxed no higher than investments in machinery and physical plant.

At present, our tax code overrewards the displacement of employees by machines. Such tax arrangements helped lead to the "part-timing" of the US work force, 30 percent of which are "contingency workers." The resulting over-automation of the US economy yielded little in overall productivity gains but inevitably increased structural unemployment.

Both parties rightly plan to reduce the military budget and cut waste. But according to a forthcoming survey on federal budget options by the Americans Talk Issues Foundation, prepared for the Congressional Institute for the Future, most Americans would cut military spending by $ 47 billion - more than either party has suggested.

On the issue of waste, a good start would be elimination of some of the $ 200 billion annually that Consumer Reports (July 1992) says is wasted in our mismanaged health-care system. That system now gobbles over 12 percent of gross national product and delivers no better results than systems in Japan, Canada, and other countries that spend one-third to one-half as much.

So the missing funds for revamping the US economy are available, but hidden from popular debate by unexamined assumptions in the tax code and the budget.

Let's look at tax codes first. Taxes, as common sense dictates and most economists agree, should, where possible, discourage unhealthy behavior, such as drinking alcohol and smoking. They should reward healthy activities like working hard, employing people, and investing in socially desirable, productive, innovative enterprises that don't create health or pollution problems.

Enter green taxes, which help keep enterprises and individuals from causing such problems. Unsound environmental behavior (like wasting energy) and corporate products and practices which result in pollution would be taxed. Economists generally favor such taxes - which correct the prices of products to reflect their true costs - over heavy-handed environmental regulation.

Green taxes include the deposits on beverage containers in 10 US states and Maryland's "feebate" tax, which adds a $ 100 surcharge to new gas-guzzling cars that get less than 27 miles per gallon (m.p.g.) and rebates $ 50 to fuel-efficient cars for every mile they get above 34 m.p.g.

Other such taxes include the "black lung tax" levied on coal producers to fund medical care for stricken employees and carbon taxes on fossil-fuel use.

Studies in Europe suggest that the revenues from green taxes potentially are large enough to remove much of the need for income and employment taxes - thus encouraging people to work harder and employers to create new jobs. This, in turn, would offset the higher prices for polluting products which companies would, at first, try to pass on to consumers. Later, those companies might opt for innovation and cleaner products.

The four main areas of green taxes are: (1) polluting emissions; (2) waste, such as over-packaging; (3) planned obsolescence, e.g., throw-away items; and, (4) depletion of virgin resources, such as oil or coal.

While both parties fiddle at the margins of change, the American people are pointing in new directions. They want specifics rather than symbolic constitutional amendments to balance the budget.

When asked in the American Talk Issues survey if they would like a similar survey with their income tax forms, 80 percent said "yes."



LOAD-DATE: July 31, 1992, Friday
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1

LENGTH: 651 words

HEADLINE: LOCAL CLINTON SUPPORT SLIPS TO PEROT, CREATING A TIGHT RACE BUSH, CLINTON CLOSE IN POLL.<

BYLINE: Dan McGuire and Jon Craig Staff Writers

BODY:
Independent presidential candidate Ross Perot has lured local voters away from Bill Clinton, leaving the Democrat tied with President Bush here as the campaign heads into its final days.

Herald American interviews with 449 registered voters last week found Bush making no headway but benefiting as Clinton loses support. The poll shows Clinton with 34 percent, Bush with 33 percent and Perot with 17 percent. The margin of error is 4.6 percent.

Two weeks ago, the num bers were Clinton 43 percent, Bush 31 percent, Perot 7 percent.

"It's still nine days to go. It's going to be tight," said

Bush's New York state campaign chairman, H. Douglas Barclay of Pulaski. "Nobody can tell what is going to happen with Perot. It is a wild card."

The poll showed little movement among undecided voters, who remained at 17 percent, up 1 percent.

Nearly half the Republicans who were leaning toward Clinton two weeks ago now say they're for Perot. The Texas billionaire made strong gains among all those who said they voted for Bush four years ago.

That kind of movement encouraged Bush's strategists, who are banking on a big turnaround in the final days. They hope the president will be the ultimate choice of those who have drifted from Clinton's camp but decide that Perot can't win.

"When that person gets into the voting booth, I think that person will say he's better off with the president," Barclay said.

Syracuse Mayor Thomas Young, a Clinton supporter, disagreed.

"Those who do go out and vote are going to have to answer an important question: Am I going to throw my vote away or vote for someone who is going to win, someone who is going to change the country in the right direction?" Young said. "The bad news for President Bush is he's going nowhere - in a stronghold. If a Republican can't carry this neck of the woods by 10 points in a presidential election year, the show's over. I still think Clinton will win the region and do well in the city."

Charles Taylor, Perot's regional campaign coordinator, wasn't surprised by Perot's gains.

"Probably the biggest turning point was the debates," Taylor said.

Forty-three percent of voters said the debates influenced their choice. That number was 10 points higher among the group that showed the greatest movement toward Perot, people who voted for Bush in 1988.

The latest national polls show Clinton maintaining a commanding lead over Bush, with Perot surging to his strongest third-place showing since he re-entered the race.

In the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, Clinton had the support of 40 percent, Bush of 35 percent and Perot of 15 percent.

The Times/CBS poll, based on interviews with 1,854 adults nationwide, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points, which means that statistically it is in the range of the other polls.

A poll taken for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal had Clinton at 47 percent, Bush at 28 percent and Perot at 19 percent. A U.S. News & World Report poll taken after the last presidential debate showed Clinton with 45 percent, Bush with 31 percent and Perot with 20 percent.

Perot hopes to capitalize with a new advertising blitz countering arguments that a vote for him is a wasted vote.

"You are throwing your vote away unless you vote your conscience," Perot says in a 30-minute commercial aired for the first time Friday. "Don't waste your vote on traditional politicians who promise you everything to get elected but never deliver."

Perot's momentum, particularly in several Western states, is drawing the attention of a front-running Clinton campaign wary of any development that confuses its strategy for the final 13 days.

"It's a problem," said Clinton communications director George Stephanopoulos. "Obviously, the higher he goes, the more he takes from us."

- The Associated Press contributed to this report

GRAPHIC: Herald American Opinion Poll. Herald American. Color.; (Note: For text of graphic se microfilm.

LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2003

Essay Instructions: DIRECTIONS FOR WRITING A POSITION PAPER
1. Write a 700-1050 word Position Paper on Aid to dependent corporations: exposing federal handouts to the wealthy.
2. After you have read the article carefully, determine your "position" on the issue.
-Do you agree with the author?s argument?
-Why or why not?
-What salient points does the author make?
-What important points does the author seem to overlook?
-What is YOUR position on the issue?
3. A Position Paper is NOT an article report. You should not simply paraphrase the article in your paper. Instead, you are to articulate your views on the issue. You should briefly summarize the topic of the article, but this should constitute no more than ? a page of your paper. The rest of the paper should be your own thoughts on the issue and the rationale for those ideas. If you agree with the author of the article, discuss the reasons that you think he or she is right. If you disagree with the author?s position, point out the weaknesses in the article and describe the important points that you feel were either left out of the article or were misrepresented.
4. A Position Paper is NOT a research paper. Write it in the first person (use "I" and "my" to refer to yourself), and only include data from other sources if it is critical to the discussion of the issue and supports your position.
5. Your Position Papers should be typewritten, double-spaced, 12/Arial font. Use a cover page and number your pages according to APA format.

Article
Source: Dollars & Sense, May-June 1995 n199 p15(4).

Title: Aid to dependent corporations: exposing federal handouts to the
wealthy.
Author: Chuck Collins

Abstract: States have been unusually generous to corporations in the manner
they allow them to enjoy tax breaks and avail of public resources such as
grazing and mineral-rich land at outrageously low rents. This corporate
privilege is called ''wealthfare'' and it constitutes an ironic situation
because the more important issue of welfare to the poor is neglected.
Furthermore, the majority are constrained to support through taxes this
anomalous situation.

Full Text COPYRIGHT 1995 Economic Affairs Bureau


In 1992 rancher J.R. Simplot of Grandview, Idaho paid the U.S. government $87,000 for grazing rights on federal lands, about one-quarter the rate charged by private landowners. Simplot''s implicit subsidy from U.S. taxpayers,
$261,000, would have covered the welfare costs of about 60 poor families. With a net worth exceeding $500 million, it''s hard to argue that Simplot needed the
money.

Since 1987, American Barrick Resources Corporation has pocketed $8.75 billion by extracting gold from a Nevada mine owned by the U.S. government. But Barrick has paid only minimal rent to the Department of the Interior. In 1992
Barrick''s founder was rewarded for his business acumen with a $32 million annual salary.

Such discounts are only one form of corporate welfare, dubbed "wealthfare" by some activists, that U.S. taxpayers fund. At a time when Congress is attempting to slash or eliminate the meager benefits received by the poor, we
are spending far more to subsidize wealthy corporations and individuals.
Wealthfare comes in five main varieties: discounted user fees for public resources; direct grants; corporate tax reductions and loopholes; giveaways of
publicly funded research and development (R&D) to private profit-making companies; and tax breaks for wealthy individuals.

Within the Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Budget Director Alice Rivlin have attacked "welfare for the rich." Armed with a study
from the Progressive Policy Institute, the Democratic Leadership Council''s think tank, Reich floated the notion that over $200 billion in corporate welfare could be trimmed over the next five years. In a sign of the problems
with our two-party system, Clinton discouraged Reich from taking this campaign further, for fear of alienating big Democratic Party funders.

TAX AVOIDANCE

The largest, yet most invisible, part of wealthfare is tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals. The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that these credits, deductions, and exemptions, called
"tax expenditures," will cost $440 billion in fiscal 1996. This compares, for example, to the $16 billion annual federal cost of child support programs.

Due both to lower basic tax rates and to myriad loopholes, corporate taxes fell from one-third of total federal revenues in 1953 to less than 10% today
(see "Disappearing Corporate Taxes," Dollars & Sense, July 1994). Were corporations paying as much tax now as they did in the 1950s, the government would take in another $250 billion a year - more than the entire budget
deficit.

The tax code is riddled with tax breaks for the natural resource, construction, corporate agri-business, and financial industries. Some serve legitimate purposes, or did at one time. Others have been distorted to create
tax shelters and perpetuate bad business practices. During the 1993 budget battle, New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley attacked the "loophole writing" industry in Washington, where inserting a single sentence into the tax laws
can save millions, even billions, in taxes for a corporate client.

Depreciation on equipment and buildings, for example, is a legitimate business expense. But the "accelerated depreciation" rule allows corporations to take
this deduction far faster than their assets are wearing out. This simply lets businesses make billions of dollars in untaxed profits. One estimate is that this loophole will cost $164 billion over the next five years.

One particularly generous tax break is the foreign tax credit, which allows U.S.-based multinational corporations to deduct from their U.S. taxes the income taxes they pay to other nations. Donald Barlett and James Steele,
authors of America: Who Really Pays the Taxes, say that by 1990 this writeoff was worth $25 billion a year.

While in many cases this credit is a valid method of preventing double taxation on profits earned overseas, the oil companies have used it to avoid most of their U.S. tax obligations. Until 1950, Saudi Arabia had no income
tax, but charged royalties on all oil taken from their wells. Such royalties are a payment for use of a natural resource. They are a standard business expense, payable before a corporation calculates the profits on which it will
pay taxes.

These royalties were a major cost to ARAMCO, the oil consortium operating there (consisting of Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco). But since royalties
are not income taxes, they could not be used to reduce Exxon and friends'' tax bills back home.

When King Saud decided to increase the royalty payments, ARAMCO convinced him to institute a corporate income tax and to substitute this for the royalties. The tax was a sham, since it applied only to ARAMCO, not to any other business in Saudi Arabia''s relatively primitive economy. The result was that the oil companies avoided hundreds of millions of dollars in their American taxes.
Eventually the other oil-producing nations, including Kuwait, Iraq, and Nigeria, followed suit, at huge cost to the U.S. Treasury.

In contrast to the ARAMCO problem, many corporate executive salaries should not be counted as deductible expenses. These salaries and bonuses are often so
large today that they constitute disguised profits. Twenty years ago the average top executive made 34 times the wages of the firm''s lowest paid workers. Today the ratio is 140 to one. The Hospital Corporation of America,
for example, paid its chairman $127 million in 1992 - $61,000 an hour! In 1993 the Clinton administration capped the deductibility of salaries at $1 million,
but the law has several loopholes that allow for easy evasion.

CHICKEN MCNUGGETS AND OTHER VITAL MATTERS

Taxes are but one form of wealthfare. Subsidized use of public resources, as with J.R. Simplot''s grazing and American Barrick''s mining, is also widespread.
Barrick''s profit-making was allowed by the General Mining Law of 1872. Just last year the government finally put a one-year moratorium on this resource-raiding.

In a manner similar to the mining situation, the U.S. Forest Service under-charges timber companies for the logs they take from publicly-owned land. The Forest Service also builds roads and other infrastructure needed by
the timber industry, investing $140 million last year.

Many corporations also receive direct payments from the federal government. The libertarian Cato Institute argues that every cabinet department "has become a conduit for government funding of private industry. Within some
cabinet agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce, almost every spending program underwrites private
business."

Agriculture subsidies typically flow in greater quantities the larger is the recipient firm. Of the $1.4 billion in annual sugar price supports, for example, 40% of the money goes to the largest 1% of firms, with the largest
ones receiving more than $1 million each.

The Agriculture Department also spends $110 million a year to help U.S. companies advertise abroad. In 1992 Sunkist Growers got $10 million, Gallo Wines $4.5 million, M&M/Mars $1.1 million, McDonalds $466,000 to promote
Chicken McNuggets, and American Legend Fur Coats $1.2 million.

The Progressive Policy Institute estimates that taxpayers could save $114 billion over five years by eliminating or restricting such direct subsidies. Farm subsidies, for example, could be limited to only small farmers.

The government also pays for scientific research and development, then allows the benefits to be reaped by private firms. This occurs commonly in medical
research. One product, the anti-cancer drug Taxol, cost the U.S. government $32 million to develop as part of a joint venture with private industry. But in the end the government gave its share to Bristol-Myers Squibb, which now
charges cancer patients almost $1,000 for a three-week supply of the drug.

WHO IS ENTITLED?

Beyond corporate subsidies, the government also spends far more than necessary to help support the lifestyles of wealthy individuals. This largess pertains to several of the most expensive and popular "entitlements" in the federal
budget, such as Social Security, Medicare, and the deductibility of interest on home mortgages. As the current budget-cutting moves in Congress demonstrate, such universal programs have much greater political strength than
do programs targeted solely at low-income households.

While this broad appeal is essential to maintain, billions of dollars could be saved by restricting the degree to which the wealthy benefit from universal
programs. If Social Security and Medicare payments were denied to just the richest 3% of households this would reduce federal spending by $30 to $40 billion a year - more than the total federal cost of food stamps.

Similarly, mortgage interest is currently deductible up to $1 million per home, justifying the term "mansion subsidy" for its use by the rich. The government could continue allowing everyone to use this deduction, but limit
it to $250,000 per home. This would affect only the wealthiest 5% of Americans, but would save taxpayers $10 billion a year.

Progressive organizations have mounted a renewed focus on the myriad handouts to the corporate and individual rich. One effort is the Green Scissors coalition, an unusual alliance of environmental groups such as Friends of the
Earth, and conservative tax-cutters, such as the National Taxpayers Union. Last January Green Scissors proposed cutting $33 billion over the next ten
years in subsidies that they contend are wasteful and environmentally damaging. These include boondoggle water projects, public land subsidies, highways, foreign aid projects, and agricultural programs.

Another new organization, Share the Wealth, is a coalition of labor, religious, and economic justice organizations. It recently launched the "Campaign for Wealth-Fare Reform," whose initial proposal targets over $35 billion in annual subsidies that benefit the wealthiest 3% of the population.
The campaign rejects the term "corporate welfare" because it reinforces punitive anti-welfare sentiments. Welfare is something a humane society guarantees to people facing poverty, unemployment, low wages, and racism.
"Wealthfare," in contrast, is the fees and subsidies extracted from the public by the wealthy and powerful - those who are least in need.

Today''s Congress is not sympathetic to such arguments. But the blatant anti-poor, pro-corporate bias of the Republicans has already begun to awaken a
dormant public consciousness. This will leave more openings, not less, for progressives to engage in public education around the true nature of government waste.

Resources: Green Scissors Report: Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally Harmful Spending and Subsidies, Friends of the Earth, 1995; Killing the Sacred Cows,
Anne Crittendon, Penguin Books, 1993; Aid to Dependent Corporations, Janice C.
Shields, Essential Information, 1994; Cut-and-Invest to Compete and Win: A
Budget Strategy for American Growth, Robert Shapiro, Progressive Policy
Institute, 1994; America: Who Really Pays the Taxes, Donald Barlett and James
Steele, Simon and Schuster, 1994.

RELATED ARTICLE: LET US COUNT THE WAYS

A few of the many subsidies received by the wealthy are:

* The Mansion Subsidy. Home mortgage interest is deductible up to $1 million
per year. Reducing the limit to $250,000 would save the government $10 billion
a year.

* The Accelerated Depreciation Subsidy. Companies get to depreciate their
equipment much Faster than it wears out. The cost: $32 billion a year.

* The Advertising Subsidy. Corporations fully deduct the cost of their
advertising. If only one-fifth of advertising expenses were considered a
capital cost of building brand name recognition, and so deductible gradually
over rime, taxpayers would save $3.5 billion a year.

* McSubsidies. $110 million a year goes directly to companies that advertise
their products abroad. Beneficiaries include Sunkist, McDonalds, and M&M/Mars.

* Wealthfare for Mining Companies. The U.S. lets big mining companies pay
peanuts for the use of federally-owned lands - our lands. An 8% royalty would
earn $200 million a year.

* Corporate Agri-Business Subsidy. The federal government gives $200 million a
year to corporate farms that each have incomes over $5 million a year.

Chuck Collins is the Co-Coordinator of the Share the Wealth Project, and works
with the Tax Equity Alliance of Massachusetts.