the life as a "corporate pilot"

[HawkerF/O]

Flew for a car dealer that would bring a week's worth of food in a large(100+lbs.) cooler to go to his condo in South Fla.as if they did not have food there.

My father does that when he travels (Car, I still don't let him use my jet cause of all the spankings I got as a youngin'. Yonder goes Paw with the switch, Cle-Roy!), but he has Cancer though, so it might not be being cheap, it might be that he likes to buy special food without all the Cr#p (preservatives) in it so he can keep his health in check. Cancer patients do things that might look odd to the unknowing. Who knows..........

 

[Lead Sled]

never apologize to liberals sled...

You are absolutely correct, it was a weak moment. Rush was gone last week and I didn't get my normal fix. :laugh:

'Sled

 

[HawkerF/O]

never apologize to liberals sled....

What exactly is it that defines a liberal? Is it a booming economy, record high employment, not associating with Jack Abrhamoff, not being an indicted Congressman from Sugarland, TX, not nation building, no Halliburton no-bid contracts, not liking the GREAT DCA access program, etc? What is it G200? You wanna pop your mouth off and get into a discussion about politics, then lets do it, and you better know $hit if you deciede to step up.

People are always so quick to label people as Liberals when they don't agree with them. That is foolish, but if you think I am a liberal or want to get into it, then lets go, but pack a lunch, Boy.

I suggest you pass, otherwise you run the risk of your "friends' discovering that you are truly nothing more than a good F#ck wasted. I'm tired of your mouth always running and will take great pleasure in shutting it up. And it'll be no problem shutting your friend's mouths as well.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

What exactly is it that defines a liberal? Is it a booming economy, record high employment, not associating with Jack Abrhamoff, not being an indicted Congressman from Sugarland, TX, not nation building, no Halliburton no-bid contracts, not liking the GREAT DCA access program, etc? What is it G200? You wanna pop your mouth off and get into a discussion about politics, then lets do it, and you better know $hit if you deciede to step up.

People are always so quick to label people as Liberals when they don't agree with them. That is foolish, but if you think I am a liberal or want to get into it, then lets go, but pack a lunch, Boy.

I suggest you pass, otherwise you run the risk of your "friends' discovering that you are truly nothing more than a good F#ck wasted. I'm tired of your mouth always running and will take great pleasure in shutting it up.

WHOA FELLA!!!!

did you get bitch slapped for using your bosses brakes again?

"pack a lunch boy"....."step up".....

(are you KIDDING me!?) - see ya at recess maybe?


go relax, take a few minutes - maybe create an intuitive "quiz" for us or something...and all will be better. You can then share all your half-ass aviation knowledge and insert your foot in your mouth once again....I know you cant resist sharing.

see ya after school, toughguy!

 

[LXJ31]

Flagpole.
3 O'clock
Be there

 

[FlyingPieceOfSt]

SO....are you saying you have too much pride to carry someones briefcase but you work for 19K/yr?

only person that might help carry your bags is your mom after she picks you up at the terminal to drive you home.


:0


not many corp guys carry briefcases...but if it was beyond you and unacceptable - yup, you belong in that 121 world.

My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedys car....or his nephews golf clubs.





Hey I flew his nephew! I was dying to ask him how his golf swing was. This was before his new orange designer jumpsuit was issued to him.

 

[HawkerF/O]

WHOA FELLA!!!!

did you get bitch slapped for using your bosses brakes again?

"pack a lunch boy"....."step up".....

(are you KIDDING me!?) - see ya at recess maybe?


go relax, take a few minutes - maybe create an intuitive "quiz" for us or something...and all will be better. You can then share all your half-ass aviation knowledge and insert your foot in your mouth once again....I know you cant resist sharing.

see ya after school, toughguy!

Wise decision...........

 

[dbchandler1]

What the Hell............ I'm bored
1. Booming economy? I have a couple left leaning economist friends and one of the few things that we all agree on is that presidents dont make economies, economies make presidents. I believe it was the technology boom that made the economy of the nineties you remember the whole dot.com thing. but i guess Al Gore did invent the internet so maybe you were right to begin with.

2. record high unemployment? see above

3. associating with Jack Abrhamoff? Unfortunately too many republicans and democrats did this, read the articles about Harry Reid if you dont believe me. but if you really do believe that taking money from lobbyists is a one-party issue you just havent met enough politicians.

4. Indicted congressman? Are there any that havent been? havent like 80 something of them been arrested previously? but seriously I dont think you can really use that as a valid point unless theres a conviction. It makes a difference.

5. Nation building? The same people who complain about this, were the ones that were saying we were just there to take their oil. Have we gotten around to taking that yet, we should get that in gear so i can stop paying 2.30 a gallon. but seriously The Iraqis are better off, Americans end up helping another country maybe climb out of the dark ages and the only thing that i really dont like about the whole thing is the fact that i am paying for it.

6. Haliburton contracts? they built many of the facities in the 80's that they are rebuilding now, they are the unchallenged leaders in experience, equiptment, and know-how when it comes to rebulding infastructures, so if you want others to bid on the contract you have to first find someone to compete with them, and nobody reallly does. I will agree that the money going to the contracts should be managed better, but thats just government in general not really a righ-left argument.

And by the way, I will carry anyones bags, dogs, wife, for the right price!!!!

 

[HawkerF/O]

I appreciate you taking the time to write something intelligent. Your thoughts have some merit, no doubt about it, but the entire picture is not being represented.

What the Hell............ I'm bored
1. Booming economy? I have a couple left leaning economist friends and one of the few things that we all agree on is that presidents dont make economies, economies make presidents. I believe it was the technology boom that made the economy of the nineties you remember the whole dot.com thing. but i guess Al Gore did invent the internet so maybe you were right to begin with.

Al Gore aside, it's really a matter of opinion as to how much impact presidents have on the economy. I will say that when good things happen on a presidents watch to the economy, they tend to get a lot more credit than they deserve, but saying they have no impact is irresponsible. If they had no impact they would not send econimic stimulus packages to congress and things of the like. What presidents do fiscally has a large impact on interest rates, which have a direct bearing on the economy. For example, Greenspan told Clinton right off the bat in '93 that he was not going to touch, much less lower, interest rates until the budget deficit was reduced in substantial #s. Clinton didn't argue, cause he was smart enough to knowhe'd be wasting his breath. Clinton sent a plan to Congress, the 1993 Economic Stimulus Package to congress that included measures for dwindling the deficit and paying off debt among other things. It worked, and Greenspan gave Clinton credit for being smart enough to see the big picture. Borrowing money just to stay in debt was making no sense at all and Clinton knew that.
I credit Bill Gates with a large part of the good times of the late 90s and early 2000. Directly, he did a lot for technology ,which in turn provided a great source of growth and income for the US. Indirectly, the Clinton Administration was smart enough not to screw that up and embraced technology and fostered its growth such as putting PCs in schools and giving large tax incentives for corporations to do things like that. Think of it like this. Run your own household the way the Gov't was run before Clinton and how it went back to being run after Clinton. Spend several times more than you take in for a year and see what happens. It would be a disaster. Or, do like Clinton insisted on and balance the budget. It's amazing how much extra $ you'll have and spend when all of your debts are paid off and you own nobody anything. It's simple econimics. When the budget was balanced and we had record surpluses, there was a lot of spending going on in the ecomony. Interest rates were low and cars, home sales and new constructions were at record highs.

2. record high unemployment? see above

I agree, technology had lots to do with that, but certainly not everything. That unemployment was not just centered in Silicon Valley. Even the Taco Bell in Blue Springs, MO was starting folks at 9/hr. Times were good. But you must also contribute that to no deficit, low interest rates, etc which causes people to spend. Or think of it as this, if unemployment was at 10 or 15 percent in November of 2004, would Bush have been reelected? Of course not. Why do you think that is if you say the ecomony or unemployment have nothing to do with the president? Both are impacted by the president to some degree. If the economy were in a 2 year recession, would Bush have been reelected? Once again, no way. His father was not reelected for that exact reason. The economy and unemployment were the 2 biggest issues of the '92 election and both hung Bush out to dry. Perot would have been a no name had the economy been in good shape back then. Bush realized too late those factors, thinking the war victory would seal his reelection, as he had 90% approval ratings in early-mid 1991. Clinton entered the race October 1991 and right away started hammering at the econimc situation of the US, thanks to James Carvill. It worked.

3. associating with Jack Abrhamoff? Unfortunately too many republicans and democrats did this, read the articles about Harry Reid if you dont believe me. but if you really do believe that taking money from lobbyists is a one-party issue you just havent met enough politicians.

Wrong. There is a huge difference in associating and taking money. Not 1 Democrat, not 1 single Democrat, took money from him, when several republicans did. Here is the confusion: Abramoff gave $ directly to these republicans while he did not to Democrats for whatever reason. Clinets of Abrhamoff, not him but some people he represents, gave $ to Democrats and republicans. You know how fickle contribution laws are, and there is a huge distinction. Clients of his gave money to politicians. So what? He directly gave $ to republicans while his clients gave $ to who they wanted. There is a huge difference. Simply put, nobody is questioning the $ that clients of his gave, they are questioning the checks with Abrhamoffs name on them. No Dem has recieved one of those checks, while plenty of Republicans have.

4. Indicted congressman? Are there any that havent been? havent like 80 something of them been arrested previously? but seriously I dont think you can really use that as a valid point unless theres a conviction. It makes a difference.

That's fair. We'll wait and see what happens.

5. Nation building? The same people who complain about this, were the ones that were saying we were just there to take their oil. Have we gotten around to taking that yet, we should get that in gear so i can stop paying 2.30 a gallon. but seriously The Iraqis are better off, Americans end up helping another country maybe climb out of the dark ages and the only thing that i really dont like about the whole thing is the fact that i am paying for it.

Honestly, I could care less about what others say. Bush is not a bad guy. He is by no definition a racist, Kanye was wrong and is a loser, and the way he was treated at King's funeral was disgusting, and he was man enough to be a gentleman about it. I don't care who you are or what issues you have, you do not disrespect a sitting president like that especially at a venue such as a funeral. Had he left of stuck up for himself, they would have cried foul. He could not defend himself and he has every right to do that. He had every right and reason to walk out, but he was man enough to take it, and that in itself says great volumes about is character. I would have walked down, shook the King children's hand and thanked them, then headed for AF1.
I personally didn't care for Saddam and yes, he needed to go. He was a horrible person. Fine. DOn't lie and make things up about why we are going over there. I do not think removing him from office was worth 2000 US soliders losing their lives for. Saddam did not provoke us, he had no weapons, and there was a more diplomatic way to remove him. Now that the damage is done, these losers saying we need to leave are just as bad as Bush for lying. He told flat out lies and when Clinton did it, most of these pilots on here said he should be removed from office. Bush might have believe he had the weapons and lied based on that. OK, fine, but when Clinton said O#al sex is not sex (definition of is is), which I agree, he believe that to be true, so what is the difference aside from the fact that no soilders got killed because BC got his duck sicked. If I get head from some chick and someone says did you have sex with her, I'd say no, and all of you would too!! There is such a double standard.

6. Haliburton contracts? they built many of the facities in the 80's that they are rebuilding now, they are the unchallenged leaders in experience, equiptment, and know-how when it comes to rebulding infastructures, so if you want others to bid on the contract you have to first find someone to compete with them, and nobody reallly does. I will agree that the money going to the contracts should be managed better, but thats just government in general not really a righ-left argument.

Agreed. My point was that other administrations, Repblican or otherwise, have not engaged in this type of non-bidding. I agree, nobody is better for what they do than Halliburton, but the rules are the rules, so lets do it right, and there will be no issues later on down the road.

Thanks again for writing something worth reading.

 

[AA717driver]

HawkerFO--Just a couple of small corrections. Clinton didn't bow to the wishes of Alan Greenspan. He threatened to fire Greenspan after his statement in '93. Wall St. had a $h!tfit and the market started to slide within minutes of the rumor being floated. Clinton backed down.

Clinton also didn't insist on a balanced budget. The Congressional elections of 1994 brought in the new Congress with it's "Contract with America" that vowed a balanced budget. (The majority party of Congress later broke that contract proving that there is no difference in the spending habits of congressmen based on party affiliation. In fact, many of the members of Congress who were swept into office with the election of '94, having campaigned on the Contract with America have since quit.) Again, Clinton recognized the direction of the tide and wisely went with it.

Neither party has a problem with deficit spending so long as THEY are the party doing the spending. To characterize one party as "irresponsible" for their spending habits while crediting the other party for its frugality is to willfully ignore history.

Politics is rotten down to its lowest, most local levels, IMO.TC

 

[HawkerF/O]

Clinton also didn't insist on a balanced budget. The Congressional elections of 1994 brought in the new Congress with it's "Contract with America" that vowed a balanced budget. (The majority party of Congress later broke that contract proving that there is no difference in the spending habits of congressmen based on party affiliation. In fact, many of the members of Congress who were swept into office with the election of '94, having campaigned on the Contract with America have since quit.) Again, Clinton recognized the direction of the tide and wisely went with it.

No, you are not giving credit where credit is due and only telling 1/2 the story. Clinton DID insist on a balanced budget, what he opposed what amending the Constitution to accomplish it. Huge difference. The GOP wanted (Contract with America) insisted on a balanced budget AMENDMENT to the Constitution. The DEMS said to take a hike and rightfully so. Had that gone though, we would not be able to be fighting the wars we are today because of the fiscal restrictions that would have required the #s to balance. A balanced budget amendment and balancing the budget are 2 different things and apples and oranges. Would you argee?

 

[HawkerF/O]

HawkerFO--Just a couple of small corrections. Clinton didn't bow to the wishes of Alan Greenspan. He threatened to fire Greenspan after his statement in '93. Wall St. had a $h!tfit and the market started to slide within minutes of the rumor being floated. Clinton backed down.

You've received some bad information. Had Clinton fired Greenspan he would hav torched his own econimic plans and he campaigned on that and won because of it, so I knwo it is something that he was unwilling to do.

Let remember: The Fed Chairman and the President work for 2 different things. The president wants as much econimic expansion (positive grown) as possible. No such thing as too much in his eyes, at least while he is in office. No president has ever been voted out of office for an economy that was too good. Never. While the Fed Chairman wants that same growth, he wants it in moderate, steady, and consistant terms that is not explosive.

Clinton NEVER once publically critizised Greenspan or tried to strongarm the Federal Reserve. Never. Their relationship always remainded close, even when they did not always see eye to eye. They essentially wanted the same things, just on different scales. Here's why they didnt see eye to eye:
In 1994 and early 1995 when the economy started to show a hint of inflation, the Fed reserve moved extremely quickly to check that inflation. Clinton took it personally and thought they were trying to spite him because of their haste. He was pissed; furious. By raising interest rates, that puts people out of work and hurts the President. If you go back and look, that same year, 1995, Greenspan was seated between Tipper and Hillary at the State of the Union. That seat is not reserved for someone the President is considering firing! By putting Greenspan in that seat, it showed him that Clinton trusted him and that they were going to make this work, and it did. Clinton knew he did not know what Greenspan knew in terms of the economy, so he trusted Greenspan to do his job. Clinton did what he needed to do and Grenspan did what he needed to do. The Feds backed off those rate hikes and then for the most part did not touch them again for 3 1/2 years. In that time Greenspan was essentially trusting Clinton as well and as long as things did not get out of control, he just was along for the ride with Clinton to see what would happen. Well, the ecomony took off and unemployment dipped and stayed below 6% and Greenspan still didn't touch the rates, even though most economists would scream at the top of their lungs that unemployment at levels that low and interests rates going unchecked would result in high levels of inflation just the same way as the sun rises in the East every morning. That inflation never happened and the rest is history.

 

[SCT]

It must be winter time.....

 

[dbchandler1]

I'm afraid I'm still taking the position that the most important thing Clinton ever did concerning the economy is to get elected at the proper time. If you look at the data the economy was coming out of recession at the end of the first Bush presidency and was already turning the corner as Clinton took office. Encorporating technology into every facet of our lives and businesses really exploded in the nineties, mostly because of a user friendly operating system (windows). you cannot lump all of the advances in technology into a tech sector. by the end of the nineties there was not one area of the economy that computers didnt touch. also think about this: a tech company takes a successful dot.com onto the internet and goes public what they really have done is taken a company that has no infastructure or equity and made that company worth millions. when wealth is suddenly created like that every sector of the economy benifits. more rich CEO's that invest in diversified stocks which help more startup companies which buy more corporate jets that employ more pilots that travel to more FBO's that hire more hot ladies behind the counter that can suddenly afford to get married that get diamonds from there fiance that causes jewelry companies to make huge profits,etc... you get the picture. That had never been possible before the nineties. in the past a company had to buy expensive equiptment or gain expensive expertise, or procure valuable resources. This is part of the reason that it was so bad when the tech bubble burst. when a technology company that is supposedly worth billions goes out of business and all they can liquidate is an office with 10 computers it is very bad! balancing the budget had more to do with cutting a cold war military and the increased tax base found by inheriting a economy that was suddenly capable of creating billions out of nothing than with any person or political party.


And by the way, the way you organize the seating charts in politics has nothing to do with who you like or are able to work with, it only has to do with what you want and who can give it to you. Clinton sits by Hilary too and we all know that doesnt mean a dang thing.

 

[dbchandler1]

yes, it is winter.

 

[2000flyer]

"Life as a corporate pilot" to "b*thcing about politics!"

Yep...that about sums it up

 

[AA717driver]

I hate to strip off your rose colored glasses but, here goes:

From the Virginia Pilot on June 6, 1994

CHAOS DEPICTED EARLY IN CLINTON TERM

Insistent advice from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan to President Clinton during the presidential transition and early in the new administration led Clinton to pursue lower deficits at the expense of the economic populism of his campaign, according to a new book.
The book, ``The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'' by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, is an intimate look at how the new Democratic president and his stumbling, feuding team of advisers struggled to formulate and adopt an economic program during Clinton's first year.

It depicts a chaotic policy-making operation, crucial intercessions by Hillary Rodham Clinton and an active policy role played by four outside political advisers.

The four were given open access to the White House, which they used in part to criticize the economic team. They complained that Clinton's fall in popularity was a result of policies being promoted by the economic advisers - or at least the way those policies were packaged for sale to the public. The two groups are described as virtually at war with each other.

The book describes Clinton temper tantrums, and it depicts him as frequently indecisive and reluctant to delegate. It portrays virtually every member of Clinton's inner circle, including Hillary Clinton, as critical of the president's management style.

On the vital economic front, Greenspan is described as a central player, albeit once removed from the inner circle. The book recounts what Woodward calls a crucial meeting between Clinton and Greenspan in Little Rock, Ark., in December 1992, the month before Clinton's inauguration.

During the 2 1/2-hour session, the Fed chairman told the president-elect that reducing the long-term federal budget deficit was ``essential'' and that the economic recovery could fall on its face if policies credible to Wall Street, particularly to bond-traders, were not advanced.

Later, in what became a pattern, the Fed chairman made suggestions, Clinton acted on them, and Greenspan rewarded the action with approving words to Congress, or other public comments meant to signal his approval.

Greenspan outlined to Clinton an economic approach Woodward calls the ``financial markets strategy.'' Policy was to be designed to send a message to Wall Street and ultimately, drive down interest rates.

The theory, and the policy Clinton adopted, bore little resemblance to the economic program on which he had campaigned. Clinton's ``Putting People First'' campaign banner stressed government ``investment'' in programs that would improve the lives of middle-class Americans such as job training, early education, government promotion of cutting-edge technology. A middle-class tax cut and health care for all Americans were sweeteners.

Greenspan's advice to Clinton that a long-term deficit-reduction program was of paramount importance was backed not only by Bentsen, but also by Budget Director Leon E. Panetta and his deputy, Alice M. Rivlin, according to the book. The president's economic advisers, with his assent, quickly jettisoned the tax cut, delayed health care reform, and then added an energy tax and spending cuts.

Clinton's political team - campaign advisers James Carville and Paul Begala, media adviser Mandy Grunwald and pollster Stan Greenberg - are portrayed as horrified and disgusted with this effort to please the market. Carville is quoted as joking he used to want to die and come back in a second life as the pope or president, but now he just wanted to be the bond market because it seemed to run the world.

The four seem to have spent much of last year decrying what that saw as mismanagement at the White House and firing off memos arguing that the president and some of his aides had lost their souls to the deficit-cutters.

Clinton, while intellectually acquiescing in the devastation of his investment programs, raged nonetheless at how it happened. While the book depicts him as highly intelligent and energetic, it recounts several Clinton temper tantrums, quoting senior aide George Stephanopoulos as calling them ``the wave'' - overpowering, prolonged rages that shocked outsiders and often seemed far out of proportion to their cause.

A recurring theme in the book is Clinton's inability to terminate debate and make a decision and his reluctance to delegate.

A memo, written in July as the White House headed into the crucial month leading up to the budget vote, warned apocalyptically that the ``current course, advanced by our economic team and congressional leaders, threatens to sink your popularity further and weaken your presidency.'' The memo, referring to extensive polling and focus groups, recommended dropping the gasoline tax, paring back the deficit-reduction package, and repackaging and reselling an economic program so it was not about taxes but about getting the nation's economic house in order.

The memo prompted Hillary Clinton to go to White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. ``Mack'' McLarty and insist it was ``panic time,'' with no plan to sell the program they were about to send to Congress, no strategy and no decisions made on key elements.

At one crucial meeting last July attended by the president and the first lady, Hillary Clinton chastised both the economic and political teams for ill serving Clinton, for lacking organization and planning, for creating a ``dysfunctional'' White House. She complained they had allowed Clinton to appear to be a ``mechanic-in-chief,'' erased his ``moral voice'' and changed his economic program from a ``values document'' to a bunch of numbers. ``I want to see a plan'' for selling the program, she demanded.

---------------------------

Clinton was forced into a program aimed at deficit reduction. Greenspan got his seat at the State of the Union because he was pulling the strings on the economy. (Greenspan was secretly directing economic policy by going through Sec. Treas. Lloyd Bentsen--the equivalent of passing notes in class.) Greenspan's suggestions worked and he became the darling of the W.H. I will have to do more research on the particulars of how Clinton and Greenspan got to this relationship. I could swear they had a rocky begining.TC

 

[Lead Sled]

All of this over a comment about baggage. Amazing, simply amazing.

 

[AA717driver]

Yep. It really is stupid. But, that's what you get in Winter... TC

 

[HawkerF/O]

Come on TC. The Virginian Pilot? A book? Bob Woodward? I must have missed the part on his resume that said "economic expert". That book was a flop and I've never heard of it. I have studied in great detail the economic expansion of the Clinton Administration. The article says Hillary was critical of her husband. I don't think so. If there is 1 thing that is for sure, that is the fact that Hillary would not be critical of her husband, especially to a reporter. Carville and Begala, same thing. There is just no way. They all would have too much to loose, especially Hillary. Unless I saw her with my own eyes, I would never believe something like that, and neithr should you. Aside from this story, tell me of another time when you have ever so much as heard of Hillary critizing her husband (Lewenski issue aside). When it comes to politics, there is just no way something like that happened. Even so, the article said that all these folks were critical of Bill, but then went on to give ZERO examples! Does that not strike you as suspicious?

Lyodd Bentson was not in the administration very long. As soon as new $ was printed with his name on it, he bailed (no kidding), so the impact of LB was minimal. IT was Bob Rubin's tenure at TREAS when America's longest period of economic expansion took place. Also remember, sustained economic growth has NEVER taken place during a Republican administration. Never. and there has noot been a budget surplus until Clinton since 1969. Those are facts to think about.

Carville is correct, the Bond market/traders (along with the Federal Reserve Board) will make or break a president. They run the economy.

Let get seomthing a little more credible than this book and we'll go from there. I'll research it was well. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying in all of my research, I've never come across Clinton and Greenspan being at each others throat. They have not always seen eye to eye, but it was always a professional relationship with mutual respect.

I hate to strip off your rose colored glasses but, here goes:

From the Virginia Pilot on June 6, 1994

CHAOS DEPICTED EARLY IN CLINTON TERM

Insistent advice from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan to President Clinton during the presidential transition and early in the new administration led Clinton to pursue lower deficits at the expense of the economic populism of his campaign, according to a new book.
The book, ``The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'' by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, is an intimate look at how the new Democratic president and his stumbling, feuding team of advisers struggled to formulate and adopt an economic program during Clinton's first year.

It depicts a chaotic policy-making operation, crucial intercessions by Hillary Rodham Clinton and an active policy role played by four outside political advisers.

The four were given open access to the White House, which they used in part to criticize the economic team. They complained that Clinton's fall in popularity was a result of policies being promoted by the economic advisers - or at least the way those policies were packaged for sale to the public. The two groups are described as virtually at war with each other.

The book describes Clinton temper tantrums, and it depicts him as frequently indecisive and reluctant to delegate. It portrays virtually every member of Clinton's inner circle, including Hillary Clinton, as critical of the president's management style.

On the vital economic front, Greenspan is described as a central player, albeit once removed from the inner circle. The book recounts what Woodward calls a crucial meeting between Clinton and Greenspan in Little Rock, Ark., in December 1992, the month before Clinton's inauguration.

During the 2 1/2-hour session, the Fed chairman told the president-elect that reducing the long-term federal budget deficit was ``essential'' and that the economic recovery could fall on its face if policies credible to Wall Street, particularly to bond-traders, were not advanced.

Later, in what became a pattern, the Fed chairman made suggestions, Clinton acted on them, and Greenspan rewarded the action with approving words to Congress, or other public comments meant to signal his approval.

Greenspan outlined to Clinton an economic approach Woodward calls the ``financial markets strategy.'' Policy was to be designed to send a message to Wall Street and ultimately, drive down interest rates.

The theory, and the policy Clinton adopted, bore little resemblance to the economic program on which he had campaigned. Clinton's ``Putting People First'' campaign banner stressed government ``investment'' in programs that would improve the lives of middle-class Americans such as job training, early education, government promotion of cutting-edge technology. A middle-class tax cut and health care for all Americans were sweeteners.

Greenspan's advice to Clinton that a long-term deficit-reduction program was of paramount importance was backed not only by Bentsen, but also by Budget Director Leon E. Panetta and his deputy, Alice M. Rivlin, according to the book. The president's economic advisers, with his assent, quickly jettisoned the tax cut, delayed health care reform, and then added an energy tax and spending cuts.

Clinton's political team - campaign advisers James Carville and Paul Begala, media adviser Mandy Grunwald and pollster Stan Greenberg - are portrayed as horrified and disgusted with this effort to please the market. Carville is quoted as joking he used to want to die and come back in a second life as the pope or president, but now he just wanted to be the bond market because it seemed to run the world.

The four seem to have spent much of last year decrying what that saw as mismanagement at the White House and firing off memos arguing that the president and some of his aides had lost their souls to the deficit-cutters.

Clinton, while intellectually acquiescing in the devastation of his investment programs, raged nonetheless at how it happened. While the book depicts him as highly intelligent and energetic, it recounts several Clinton temper tantrums, quoting senior aide George Stephanopoulos as calling them ``the wave'' - overpowering, prolonged rages that shocked outsiders and often seemed far out of proportion to their cause.

A recurring theme in the book is Clinton's inability to terminate debate and make a decision and his reluctance to delegate.

A memo, written in July as the White House headed into the crucial month leading up to the budget vote, warned apocalyptically that the ``current course, advanced by our economic team and congressional leaders, threatens to sink your popularity further and weaken your presidency.'' The memo, referring to extensive polling and focus groups, recommended dropping the gasoline tax, paring back the deficit-reduction package, and repackaging and reselling an economic program so it was not about taxes but about getting the nation's economic house in order.

The memo prompted Hillary Clinton to go to White House Chief of Staff Thomas F. ``Mack'' McLarty and insist it was ``panic time,'' with no plan to sell the program they were about to send to Congress, no strategy and no decisions made on key elements.

At one crucial meeting last July attended by the president and the first lady, Hillary Clinton chastised both the economic and political teams for ill serving Clinton, for lacking organization and planning, for creating a ``dysfunctional'' White House. She complained they had allowed Clinton to appear to be a ``mechanic-in-chief,'' erased his ``moral voice'' and changed his economic program from a ``values document'' to a bunch of numbers. ``I want to see a plan'' for selling the program, she demanded.

---------------------------

Clinton was forced into a program aimed at deficit reduction. Greenspan got his seat at the State of the Union because he was pulling the strings on the economy. (Greenspan was secretly directing economic policy by going through Sec. Treas. Lloyd Bentsen--the equivalent of passing notes in class.) Greenspan's suggestions worked and he became the darling of the W.H. I will have to do more research on the particulars of how Clinton and Greenspan got to this relationship. I could swear they had a rocky begining.TC