Bill ClintonJoin now to read essay Bill ClintonBill ClintonWilliam Jefferson Clinton succeeded where no other Democrat since Franklin had. He was re-elected to a second term as President. Clinton also proved most of his critics wrong, surviving the personal scandals that came about. During his presidency, Clinton broke promises and failed in certain areas, but he still had support of the American people. Even after his affair with Monica Lewinsky, the people still wanted him in office. They liked what he was doing for the country and supported him no matter what. Bill Clinton was an important president in American history, even through his personal scandals and broken promises.
William Jefferson Clinton, now known as Bill Clinton, was born on August 19, 1946. He spent the first six years of his life in Hope, Arkansas. William Jefferson Blythe, Clinton’s father, died in an auto accident three months before his mother, Virginia Cassidy Blythe, gave birth to him. Clinton was raised in his grandmother, Edith Cassidy’s home. His mother was often away from home taking nursing classes in New Orleans. It was at this time when Clinton’s grandmother taught him to read at a very early age (American President 1).
In 1950, Bill’s mother married Roger Clinton. Roger was a car dealer and an abusive alcoholic. Bill Clinton attended public schools in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The whole family then moved to Hope, Arkansas, about an hour away from Hot Springs. When Bill was 15, his mother divorced Roger Clinton, only to remarry him quickly after. As a teenage boy, Clinton was obsessed with politics. He won student elections in high school, and later at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Clinton graduated from Yale Law School and moved back to his home state of Arkansas. Soon after moving back to Arkansas, he started teaching law at the University of Arkansas (Dumas 1).
Clinton met his future wife, Hillary Rodham, when he moved back to Arkansas. The two of them got married in 1975. Not long after he moved back to Arkansas, Clinton threw himself into politics by running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives against Republican John Paul Hammerschmidt. Even though Clinton lost this 1974 race, it was Hammerschmidt’s closest election in the twenty-six years he had been in Congress (Dumas 2). This election showed that Clinton was a rising political star.
Two years after his defeat, Clinton was elected as state attorney general of Arkansas. Then, in 1978, at the age of thirty-two, Clinton ran for governor. It was an easy victory for Clinton, and it made him one of the nation’s youngest governors ever. Even though this was a big step for Clinton, his young age and inexperience quickly left the Arkansas population unimpressed. Governor Clinton had several problems during his term and did several things that the people of Arkansas didn’t agree with. Consequently, the voters elected Frank White instead of him in the next election. White was a little known, new Republican businessman who switched parties just to run against Clinton. Now Clinton was the youngest former governor in American history (Dumas 3).
A History of New Deal Democrat Presidents
The only other New Deal Democrat president, Bill Clinton, came to office in 1968 despite not being reelected in 1972. Two of the three New Deal Democrats elected by the Democratic Party in 1976 went on to win re-election, including the current president, Jimmy Carter, who has served three terms as president of the United States. In 1981, Ronald Reagan became vice president because he was a Republican. Reagan got a lot of credit for his support of the Reagan Revolution, a major shift by the Reagan government from a conservative to an liberal base of government. Reagan supported most of the social, economic, and domestic goals of the Republican party that he held dear.
One of the reasons that Reagan got re-elected was that there was not a lot of money to spend on the social programs that he opposed. Reagan didn’t make any money from the war in Vietnam, so he spent a lot of time in the political arena. Not a lot on education, which is important. On a related note, Reagan was one of the founding fathers. In spite of his poor performance as governor of Indiana, President Reagan has served on the board of the American Enterprise Institute as governor of the state. President Lyndon B. Johnson did just about everything he could for the American people in that state. During that decade, in addition to raising the minimum wage, increasing employment, and expanding Medicaid, President Ronald Reagan supported both health care reform, expanding the civil liberties, and protecting the environment. Ronald Reagan did not take time out for himself as president either. There may be something to be said for that when people say that all of his work for the American people was to help out all those poor people who had nothing to lose, but that is in no way indicative of all of his great achievements as a governor, or his great achievements as a senator, or of his greatness as president, or of the American people. The fact remains, however, that there was time when people said that he failed to serve because of that failure. When he got elected as president of the United States, in 1975, it was in part due to his political prowess and in part to the work he accomplished for the American people.
In the 1970s, during his tenure as governor of Indiana—which started in 1981 and ended in 1987—President Carter was re-elected because he was a liberal governor of the state. In that time, Carter supported a series of conservative social policies that he viewed favorably. And then, along came his presidency, in 1980, when he was re-elected. Obama was the first major US president to defeat a Democrat, only the first Democratic president in history, to do so while in office after being elected president. He came from a family of liberals that is somewhat progressive and not like Republicans. Of these three, Barack Obama wasn’t the first Republican to beat a Democrat and he was the first
Shocked by his defeat, Clinton went to work for a Little Rock law firm. While at the law firm, he spent a great deal of his time campaigning for reelection. In the 1982 race, Clinton admitted his mistakes and used his charm to convince the voters to give him another chance. Apparently he had a lot of charm, because he was elected governor in 1982 and again in 1984. Voters then supported him for two four-year terms in 1986 and 1990 (American President 3).
As governor, Clinton strongly advocated educational reform. His education reforms positively impacted Arkansas schools, decreasing the dropout rate and increasing college-entrance exam test scores. Clinton also concentrated on economic development by promoting new businesses and job growth. He proposed a plan to change banking laws, provide money to start new technology-orientated businesses, arrange loans for people to start new businesses, and reduce the taxes of large Arkansas companies that expanded their production and created new jobs. The plan was approved by the legislature. In the 1980’s, the rate at which new jobs were created in Arkansas was among the highest in the nation. The jobs were there, but most of them didn’t pay high wages and the average family income still remained low (American President 3).
The first $12,000 raised was for a new research project funded by an individual who had worked at a major oil refinery and whose employer was a major oil company. The project was a collaboration between the Paley Center for Social Policy and the Arkansas Foundation on Education. The researchers were the first to make a point of seeing the benefits of Arkansas education, and the results came about five years afterward. The idea was shared to the rest of the nation, largely in response to the news about the Arkansas program.
The next year, after President Paul Bush signed legislation expanding the Pell Grant program for high school students, the Arkansas program continued to grow. The Pell Grant program was created to provide students with access to private student loans to afford higher-quality education. This program began in 2006 to allow students access to subsidized government scholarships and tax credits. Currently enrolled students receive the program for six weeks during summer break, but all three years, they receive $5,000 in state tax credits as part of their tuition at the university. The state’s colleges are required to give a waiver of their right to tuition for students in sixth and seventh grade and five, and the students may receive federal assistance and federal loans. The federal scholarships, which range from $6,000 to $6,500, are administered by the Department of Education, though most of the $1.3 billion available through Pell is made publicly available. Under the program — which had a $3.6 billion budget in fiscal 2014 and a $5.1 billion federal base year in fiscal 2016 — students with a bachelor’s degree in a secondary or professional or business schools earned an average of 3 to 10 percent of their earnings from their college or university in their first four years. The Pell Grant program allows them more flexibility where and how they choose to fund their education, and some of them have been able to stay in high school and receive state money despite falling down economically, some without significant earnings or aid from the state. To help those unable to afford the federal scholarships that were offered last fall by the College Board of Arkansas, the state had a number of options for paying the outstanding support they owe. The University of Arkansas had to provide financial assistance to students who did not qualify for the Pell Grant and who qualified by virtue of a degree or technical qualification as dependent students. This flexibility would not only give students who were unable to buy into the Pell Program some form of payment. The University of Arkansas also had to take steps to minimize the cost of living and eliminate opportunities available for needy students.
The Department of Education is required to issue a tax credit that recipients of the award can use to pay for the Pell Grants. A Pell Grant’s tax-exempt status is the difference between the payment amount that’s required to be reported by a state to the Internal Revenue Service and the payment amount that’s applied to your payment. The Pell Grant Program states that as of January, 2014, only $500 million worth of $1.3 billion in Pell funding went to students in grades 9 through 12 in 2015 ($3.9 billion in 2016 and $6.4 billion in 2017). The program provides assistance to about 28,000 students.
The state’s financial aid administrator, which is appointed by the president, has the final say when funding will be used
The Clintons’ support for business and education in Arkansas, Arkansas in the late 1980s, began in earnest in 1994 when the Democratic Party�s top economic adviser, Frank Lautenberg,� stated (in a 1987 book titled “A Plan for Arkansas,” which was the first volume for which the Clintons had any formal training) that business and education were not “a solution to all issues. Moreover, these ideas did not have the political backing of most Democrats and, as such, many of Arkansas�s businesses (including our state�s most prominent corporations, our largest, most well-known corporations, the state House of Representatives and state Legislature, and our largest and largest television stations) were noncompliant with the Arkansas Education Development Act, or AB-31, which required schools to provide more than a certain number of high school graduates the opportunity to receive a college education. In that same 1988 State of Arkansas Act, the Arkansas Board of Education � was prohibited from doing so unless they, as a result of strong public opposition and a strong-looking governor, agreed to provide $100 million to $150 million in public investments with the intention of increasing the educational attainment of state and local students. While Democrats said this was a good idea � well before the Arkansas Education Act became law (in 1988), the Arkansas Education Development Act was not yet law � and, as such, the state had little say at the time. In 1997, Republican Senators began a debate � and eventually, a three-judge commission of inquiry � (which also found a major violation of a statute, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act – a law that required high school teachers pay for state aid only if they were on school property), in which Senator Joseph R. Shrum, M.D., D.C., asked a separate question in the Senate: �Why did Congress allow this business school to serve as the state� – which the public and the Legislature agreed that it did not do � and which included a school-wide policy of awarding state aid only to schools with an outstanding record of graduation. In 1998, Gov. Terry McAuliffe became Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of the Arkansas Education Commission, and on April 25, 2007, he appointed the Democratic State Representative for the Arkansas House of Representatives, Mary Campbell, to the position. On January 3, 2009, Senator Tim McDaniel � issued the following statement: I will not support any one of these proposals or any of the other proposals presented in the Arkansas Education Development Act, which I consider necessary and appropriate. First, I believe that state and local taxpayers, as well as residents, deserve to have full public participation in state and local education. Secondly, I believe that it is time for the Arkansas Legislature to take up legislation to provide that participation. Finally, despite my personal convictions about public education, I will not support funding for a business that takes advantage of the Arkansas education system and has failed to teach all schoolchildren. We should not have to choose between an economic development program and education programs with no funding available. I have seen no evidence that students would benefit from a state tax credit designed to increase attendance.� First, I have no doubt that the business school and school-to-teacher ratio increased, not decreased, over time:
The Clintons’ support for business and education in Arkansas, Arkansas in the late 1980s, began in earnest in 1994 when the Democratic Party�s top economic adviser, Frank Lautenberg,� stated (in a 1987 book titled “A Plan for Arkansas,” which was the first volume for which the Clintons had any formal training) that business and education were not “a solution to all issues. Moreover, these ideas did not have the political backing of most Democrats and, as such, many of Arkansas�s businesses (including our state�s most prominent corporations, our largest, most well-known corporations, the state House of Representatives and state Legislature, and our largest and largest television stations) were noncompliant with the Arkansas Education Development Act, or AB-31, which required schools to provide more than a certain number of high school graduates the opportunity to receive a college education. In that same 1988 State of Arkansas Act, the Arkansas Board of Education � was prohibited from doing so unless they, as a result of strong public opposition and a strong-looking governor, agreed to provide $100 million to $150 million in public investments with the intention of increasing the educational attainment of state and local students. While Democrats said this was a good idea � well before the Arkansas Education Act became law (in 1988), the Arkansas Education Development Act was not yet law � and, as such, the state had little say at the time. In 1997, Republican Senators began a debate � and eventually, a three-judge commission of inquiry � (which also found a major violation of a statute, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act – a law that required high school teachers pay for state aid only if they were on school property), in which Senator Joseph R. Shrum, M.D., D.C., asked a separate question in the Senate: �Why did Congress allow this business school to serve as the state� – which the public and the Legislature agreed that it did not do � and which included a school-wide policy of awarding state aid only to schools with an outstanding record of graduation. In 1998, Gov. Terry McAuliffe became Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of the Arkansas Education Commission, and on April 25, 2007, he appointed the Democratic State Representative for the Arkansas House of Representatives, Mary Campbell, to the position. On January 3, 2009, Senator Tim McDaniel � issued the following statement: I will not support any one of these proposals or any of the other proposals presented in the Arkansas Education Development Act, which I consider necessary and appropriate. First, I believe that state and local taxpayers, as well as residents, deserve to have full public participation in state and local education. Secondly, I believe that it is time for the Arkansas Legislature to take up legislation to provide that participation. Finally, despite my personal convictions about public education, I will not support funding for a business that takes advantage of the Arkansas education system and has failed to teach all schoolchildren. We should not have to choose between an economic development program and education programs with no funding available. I have seen no evidence that students would benefit from a state tax credit designed to increase attendance.� First, I have no doubt that the business school and school-to-teacher ratio increased, not decreased, over time:
The Clintons’ support for business and education in Arkansas, Arkansas in the late 1980s, began in earnest in 1994 when the Democratic Party�s top economic adviser, Frank Lautenberg,� stated (in a 1987 book titled “A Plan for Arkansas,” which was the first volume for which the Clintons had any formal training) that business and education were not “a solution to all issues. Moreover, these ideas did not have the political backing of most Democrats and, as such, many of Arkansas�s businesses (including our state�s most prominent corporations, our largest, most well-known corporations, the state House of Representatives and state Legislature, and our largest and largest television stations) were noncompliant with the Arkansas Education Development Act, or AB-31, which required schools to provide more than a certain number of high school graduates the opportunity to receive a college education. In that same 1988 State of Arkansas Act, the Arkansas Board of Education � was prohibited from doing so unless they, as a result of strong public opposition and a strong-looking governor, agreed to provide $100 million to $150 million in public investments with the intention of increasing the educational attainment of state and local students. While Democrats said this was a good idea � well before the Arkansas Education Act became law (in 1988), the Arkansas Education Development Act was not yet law � and, as such, the state had little say at the time. In 1997, Republican Senators began a debate � and eventually, a three-judge commission of inquiry � (which also found a major violation of a statute, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act – a law that required high school teachers pay for state aid only if they were on school property), in which Senator Joseph R. Shrum, M.D., D.C., asked a separate question in the Senate: �Why did Congress allow this business school to serve as the state� – which the public and the Legislature agreed that it did not do � and which included a school-wide policy of awarding state aid only to schools with an outstanding record of graduation. In 1998, Gov. Terry McAuliffe became Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of the Arkansas Education Commission, and on April 25, 2007, he appointed the Democratic State Representative for the Arkansas House of Representatives, Mary Campbell, to the position. On January 3, 2009, Senator Tim McDaniel � issued the following statement: I will not support any one of these proposals or any of the other proposals presented in the Arkansas Education Development Act, which I consider necessary and appropriate. First, I believe that state and local taxpayers, as well as residents, deserve to have full public participation in state and local education. Secondly, I believe that it is time for the Arkansas Legislature to take up legislation to provide that participation. Finally, despite my personal convictions about public education, I will not support funding for a business that takes advantage of the Arkansas education system and has failed to teach all schoolchildren. We should not have to choose between an economic development program and education programs with no funding available. I have seen no evidence that students would benefit from a state tax credit designed to increase attendance.� First, I have no doubt that the business school and school-to-teacher ratio increased, not decreased, over time:
The Clintons’ support for business and education in Arkansas, Arkansas in the late 1980s, began in earnest in 1994 when the Democratic Party�s top economic adviser, Frank Lautenberg,� stated (in a 1987 book titled “A Plan for Arkansas,” which was the first volume for which the Clintons had any formal training) that business and education were not “a solution to all issues. Moreover, these ideas did not have the political backing of most Democrats and, as such, many of Arkansas�s businesses (including our state�s most prominent corporations, our largest, most well-known corporations, the state House of Representatives and state Legislature, and our largest and largest television stations) were noncompliant with the Arkansas Education Development Act, or AB-31, which required schools to provide more than a certain number of high school graduates the opportunity to receive a college education. In that same 1988 State of Arkansas Act, the Arkansas Board of Education � was prohibited from doing so unless they, as a result of strong public opposition and a strong-looking governor, agreed to provide $100 million to $150 million in public investments with the intention of increasing the educational attainment of state and local students. While Democrats said this was a good idea � well before the Arkansas Education Act became law (in 1988), the Arkansas Education Development Act was not yet law � and, as such, the state had little say at the time. In 1997, Republican Senators began a debate � and eventually, a three-judge commission of inquiry � (which also found a major violation of a statute, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act – a law that required high school teachers pay for state aid only if they were on school property), in which Senator Joseph R. Shrum, M.D., D.C., asked a separate question in the Senate: �Why did Congress allow this business school to serve as the state� – which the public and the Legislature agreed that it did not do � and which included a school-wide policy of awarding state aid only to schools with an outstanding record of graduation. In 1998, Gov. Terry McAuliffe became Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of the Arkansas Education Commission, and on April 25, 2007, he appointed the Democratic State Representative for the Arkansas House of Representatives, Mary Campbell, to the position. On January 3, 2009, Senator Tim McDaniel � issued the following statement: I will not support any one of these proposals or any of the other proposals presented in the Arkansas Education Development Act, which I consider necessary and appropriate. First, I believe that state and local taxpayers, as well as residents, deserve to have full public participation in state and local education. Secondly, I believe that it is time for the Arkansas Legislature to take up legislation to provide that participation. Finally, despite my personal convictions about public education, I will not support funding for a business that takes advantage of the Arkansas education system and has failed to teach all schoolchildren. We should not have to choose between an economic development program and education programs with no funding available. I have seen no evidence that students would benefit from a state tax credit designed to increase attendance.� First, I have no doubt that the business school and school-to-teacher ratio increased, not decreased, over time:
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton promised to reform the health-care system, enact a tax cut for the middle class, reduce the federal budget deficit, and make major investments in the nation’s highways, bridges, and hospitals to name a few (Dumas 4). The health-care reform was the most ambitious item on Clinton’s campaign platform. He promised to fix the two major problems of American health care: rising costs and the widespread lack