Knowing the dislike between the Obama and the Clinton camps, I’m sure Obama would have included the former president, had he known.
Actually, Bill Clinton must be something even worse than a social Darwinist. That’s because the title of this post is wrong. Obama said that Paul Ryan’s plan (which allows spending to grow by an average of 3.1 percent per year over the next decade) is a form of “social Darwinism.”
But the proposal from the House Budget Committee Chairman only reduces the burden of federal spending to 20.25 percent of GDP by the year 2023.
Yet when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic output.
And by the President’s reasoning, this must make Clinton something worse than a Darwinist. Perhaps Marquis de Sade or Hannibal Lecter.
Here’s a blurb from the New York Times on Obama’s speech.
Mr. Obama’s attack, in a speech during a lunch with editors and reporters from The Associated Press, was…
View original post 221 more words