Clinton: Old Democrat again?

I thought this graph from Clinton's DNC speech was a doozy:

"These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left-enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement-into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it's not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they're competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it's good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man."

The architect of the new Democrats apparently has decided to be an old Democrat again—his rhetoric reminds me of the standard faire of Democrats circa the Mondale campaign in '84: criticizing spending cuts and tax cuts, while fear mongering about deficits and social security--with some protectionism thrown in for good measure.

There’s a reason the Democrats moved on, how can Clinton so easily revert? Does he even believe what he’s saying? One has to pretend a fair amount to buy what he's selling:

Let’s pretend that despite his track record Kerry won’t actually INCREASE the deficit as will be the inevitable result of his election year pledges. (Or NOT: See this R21 post or this piece from the WSJ: “If we put the spending and tax sides together, the first budget that Mr. Kerry will submit would increase the deficit over 10 years by a minimum of about $1.2 trillion and, more likely, by well over $2 trillion. While a few smaller proposals from Mr. Kerry raise a little more revenue, they do not go anywhere near the level necessary to close the enormous gap between spending and taxes.”)

Let’s pretend that Bush’s tax cuts, and not huge structural problems and the baby boom, are the reason Social Security is so dysfunctional and in need of reform. (Or NOT.)

Let’s indulge in the fantasy that we can concentrate our tax policy on the prosperous and not retard prosperity and the even infinite progressivity in the tax code has no consequence (Or NOT or NOT again.)

Let’s pretend that China and Japan investing in the US is a bad thing. (Or NOT.)

Let’s pretend that we need protective trade laws to compete with Asia, not competitive regulatory and tax policy in this country. (Or NOT.)

And if you can pretend all of that, you can pretend that Clinton’s book actually belongs in the non-fiction section.