It’s a good thing Pinnochio isn’t on either of the major parties’ presidential ticket. Had he given answers like some of those Vice President Al Gore and his Republican challenger, Jack Kemp, gave in their debate Tuesday, his nose would have grown.
It’s not that they lied. It’s what they left out, especially on the subject of America’s cities, a topic neither party has been all that eager to explore.
Kemp led the exchange by charging that the Clinton administration has “abandoned” blighted neighborhoods. He left out the part about the administration’s $4 billion in tax credits and other types of financial assistance to 105 “empowerment zones” in poor neighborhoods.
Gore lashed back that, while Kemp was President Bush’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Bush vetoed a major package of tax incentives to help redevelop blighted neighborhoods in 1992. He left out the salient fact that the urban package was part of a bigger bill containing $27 billion in tax increases proposed by the Democratic Congress.
So much for the notion that debates bring out the whole truth.
More Top Picks Msi Cyborg 17 Review
At least, it was refreshing to hear the state of American cities discussed, even if it was by the two running mates.
But Kemp’s biggest asset to the Republican ticket, his urban outreach and expertise, has been neutralized by an unexpected development: Cities are better off today than they were four years ago.
As President Clinton mentioned in his first debate with Bob Dole, violent crime has experienced its first three-year decline nationwide since 1960, particularly in the cities. From 1993 to 1995, violent crime fell 26 percent in New York City, by 21 percent in Los Angeles and San Francisco and by 13 percent in the nation’s 50 largest cities.
And more than a million more city residents are working than four years ago and homeownership rates in cities are the highest in 15 years.
Who’s responsible?
HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros credits Clinton administration policies that have opened the doors to demolishing or rehabilitating rundown public housing and neighborhoods. He also credits the robust economy for creating 10.5 million new jobs in the past four years, more than 90 percent of them in the private sector. The current recovery also has produced an increase in real, inflation-adjusted wages for the first time in 10 years.
House Republicans respond that most of the urban improvements have come as a result of private initiatives, not the Clinton administration’s policies. “Often HUD itself is part of the problem,” Rep. James M. Talent (R–Mo.) said last summer, responding to a Cisneros speech.
Actually, the presidential wings of both parties have moved away from cities and toward the suburbs as a result of growth spurred since World War II by federal highway, housing and sewer programs. Policies have consequences. While suburban politicians beat up on welfare cheats, these same politicians owe much of their tax base growth to federal generosity.
Whatever the reasons for the apparent improvements in America’s cities, the improvements come at an awkward time for Kemp, who is calling for massive “empowerment” efforts and drastic tax cuts and budget cuts to “save” our cities and spur an economic growth that already is happening.
This puts Kemp in an awkward position for a conservative: He must call for drastic changes in a status quo that, after years of decline, may only require minor tinkering.
Clinton does not deserve all the credit for the current recovery in urban America, but there’s no question that if our cities were in an economic slump, as they were four years ago, he would, like Bush, be catching most of the blame. The recovery is happening on his watch, so he benefits.
Meanwhile, the worst the Kemp-Dole ticket can say is “We can do better.” That’s not saying much. After all, as many voters remember, we also could be doing a lot worse.