Bill Clinton: “Well, the only commitment that I have myself abandoned on my own initiative was the one that I went before the American…”

“Well, the only commitment that I have myself abandoned on my own initiative was the one that I went before the American people and told them about on February 17th, and that was the commitment not to have any sort of tax burden on the middle class. We're now down to about $50 a year. And I explained to the American people why I did that: because the deficit was written up so much bigger after I got elected, and because I thought it was important to get the deficit down, and I thought they'd be better off over the long run, and that I still believe that the tax system ought to be changed to be more fair to middle class families, especially those with children, and I had a 4-year term to try to get it done. And I think when a President has to break a campaign commitment, the best way to do it is to go before the American people and say, ``Here's what I had to do and why.'' Now, we also, frankly, clearly delayed what I said I would do on immigration of Haitians. And I've already explained why on that. But we are working through this whole immigration policy in a way that I think will allow us to return to the policy I advocated in the campaign. When you compromise, I think the question is almost always: What are your alternatives, and are the people you're trying to help and the objectives you're seeking to further better off? I can hardly add anything to what Barney Frank said in his op-ed piece on the gays in the military, for example, in the Washington Post, I mean, the idea that no President in the history of this country has ever tried to take on this issue, no candidate running for President had ever really spoken to the issue before I did. I don't ask for any kudos for that, that's just a fact. I think the consciousness of the American people is different and broader as a result, and I think that the question of the compromise here is a pretty clear one. If you look at it in words, the compromise is more restrictive than what I wanted and what I would like to do today. I think people ought to be able to say they're gay and serve and obey all the rules. But I couldn't get that past the Joint Chiefs, who are bound to follow my orders, but they're also bound by law to tell the Congress the truth about what they think when asked by Congress. That's also the law of the land, and that would have led to a certain reversal of the policy by the Congress. Everyone who lives in this town knows that. So--let me finish--on the other hand, as a practical matter, the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, working together and then with me, agreed to provide much more practical protection for the privacy and associational rights of all members of the armed services, without regard to their sexual orientation, than existed before in ways that will clearly advance the cause that we all know is a fact: that there are homosexuals who serve in the Armed Forces with great distinction. So the question is: Was it a good compromise or an abandonment of principle? Should I have made everybody feel better for a day and then watch their hopes dashed and see Congress maybe even return to the status quo ante, which was--the first battle we won on that was getting the Joint Chiefs to stop asking at the beginning of the year. Is it better off? I have nothing to add to what Barney Frank said. I think that it was an honorable compromise by honorable people, and we did the best we could. And on the economic plan, what I said about that in the campaign, and the only thing I ever said about that with regard to the gas tax, was that I thought raising the gas tax a nickel a year in a 5-year budget plan was too much. And I still believe that. The gas tax now being debated is a lower tax on fuel than the Btu tax which passed the House. It is a lower tax on fuel than the Btu tax that passed the House. Therefore, there is nothing dishonorable or dishonest about what would happen. I think if you look at what this administration has done--we've taken on the deficit; we're taking on health care; we're taking on welfare reform. We're about to get national service, being debated in both Houses today. We passed a campaign finance reform bill, a lobby bill, and the line-item veto, all things I advocated, through one of the two Houses of Congress. If you go back to the last several years, it would be hard to find a 6-month period early in a Presidency in which more had been done on more issues to fulfill the specific commitments I made in the campaign and to actually get things done that will change the lives of the American people. So I think it is indeed a strange measure of the progress of our administration that these negative comments would come out. I mean, my predecessor had been Vice President for 8 years and didn't announce a foreign policy until August. You know, I got out here, and I got up here every day and went to work, and that's what I'm going to keep doing. But anyway, that would be my distinction between those two things. Business Entertainment Deduction”