Dear Editor:
It’s me again . Miss Demma. Let me try this one more time.
The information I used for my last letter (“Don’t blame Clinton and laud Congress,” Feb. 26) came directly from President Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union Address. If that information is false, I apologize, but I seriously doubt it is.
In reference to Mr. Martin’s latest letter (Clinton not upgrade over Reagan, Bush,” March 11), I am curious as to why he used some of the statistics that he did. I also went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site, but I found a different picture than the one Mr. Martin presented.
I found that in 1996 layoffs occurred at 5,697 companies, but upon looking further into the future, I also saw that layoffs occurred at 5,522 companies in 2000. Calculating his math a little closer proves there is a greater total decrease in layoffs in the last four years of Clinton’s presidency than the increase that took place during the two years that Mr. Martin decided to share with us all.
What does all this mean, do you ask?
It means that from 1996-2000 total layoffs went down 3 percent. This differs from the 3 percent increase that occurred between 1996 and 1998 that was mentioned in his last letter.
Why didn’t Mr. Martin share this little tidbit of information with us all? Was it because it puts the economy during Clinton’s presidency in a favorable light?
Now, I don’t really want to open a can of worms here – I just thought that it was interesting.
Incidentally, the number of manufacturing layoffs that occurred in this 1996-2000 timeframe went from 1,978 companies to 1,787 companies (that’s a 10 percent decrease).
These figures (from 2000) are using preliminary data, but I believe that is fair because the statistics from ’99 are even more in my favor.
Additionally, I was right about the president overriding one part of government; Congress can stop a bill the president wants just as easily as he can veto one of theirs.
Since there wasn’t a two-thirds majority in Congress, they must have not felt strongly enough about the NAFTA legislation to stop the bill – that doesn’t mean that I am promoting NAFTA; it just means that many Americans have a belief in this thing called “checks and balances” that prevents one part of the government (like the president) from dominating another.
Furthermore, I never said Clinton was a “hero.” I believe that he was a good president, possibly great. This would be my opinion; I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Your political opinions are your own. I agree with Mr. Martin about corporate money ruling politics, but I also believe that Clinton was a greater president than Reagan and Bush. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why (need I mention the Iran-Contra Affair?).Britni L. Demma

Author