Menu
Share
 
Switch to Desktop Site

Fiscal Plan's Credibility Is Key to Clinton Success

Pollsters weigh the impact of charges that Clinton's economic plan was presented in a misleading fashion

About these ads

DURING the presidential campaign, Republicans tried hard to paint Bill Clinton as too untrustworthy to hold high office. They failed. But now the "trust" issue may be rearing its head again - and even some Democrats are concerned that President Clinton could be damaged by inconsistencies in his economic plan.

A public opinion survey conducted by Republican pollster Ed Goeas and Democrat Celinda Lake for U.S. News & World Report magazine shows that only 39 percent of the public believes Clinton is "good" or "very good" about keeping his promises, while 48 percent rated him negatively on this score. Those surveyed were almost evenly split over whether Clinton's economic program "showed leadership" or reflected "broken promises."

Poll takers say the credibility concerns focus on two related issues: Does Clinton's economic plan violate his campaign promises to cut middle-class taxes and not to boost the gasoline tax? And was the plan presented in a misleading fashion that played down tax hikes while exaggerating spending cuts?

Samuel Popkin, a professor at the University of California at San Diego who did polling for the Clinton campaign, says that concerns about whether Clinton's budget numbers add up might ultimately be more damaging to the president than whether he broke campaign promises.

"What's critical is that this should be a plan he can stand up and be straight about - a plan with no games and no evasions," Professor Popkin says.

To counter charges of fiscal sleight-of-hand, the Clinton administration has used budget numbers generated by the Congressional Budget Office. In the past, many presidents have relied on overly optimistic figures from the Office of Management and Budget.

"The press has not gotten the point about how important it is that Clinton has used straight numbers.... That inspires trust," Popkin says.

But the jury is still out on the plan. Among the key debates:

* What will increased taxes, and especially the energy levy, cost ordinary Americans? Clinton says higher taxes will hit only families earning more than $30,000 a year and that the energy tax will cost them $200 annually. But critics insist that, once indirect costs are added, the energy tax might cost families up to $500 a year. They also point out that Clinton has redefined "income" to include fringe benefits and the imputed rental value of a home. Under the definition of pretax income used by the Inte rnal Revenue Service, the tax bite will affect families earning only $20,000 in cash annually.

Next

Page:   1   |   2


Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Loading...