Re: "I think his point is that Clinton faced far better circumstances to reduce deficits and achieve surpluses than other recent presidents of either party....'
I don't see how one could think that....
Easy - He took over after a recession ended, and had almost uninterrupted economic growth during his time in office. He also had the ability to reasonably shrink the military because of the end of the cold war, and could spend less than even the lower new size would otherwise have cost because of all the new equipment Reagan bought (which replaced weapon systems and other equipment which otherwise would have had to have been expensively replaced). Also he had a boom, even at the end a bubble, in stocks (which contributes to the governments fiscal balance far more directly than a housing bubble since capital gains on stock are taxed on sale, and sales happen more often, when capital gains on most housing sales are not taxed). And politically he had the congress most concerned about restraining spending and reducing deficits, that any modern president had. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Obama, all had big spending congresses, Clinton had the most tightfisted congress in modern American history.
Given all of that he reasonably could have had a net surplus for his time in office, not just the lowest deficits of any recent president.
OTOH, even measuring based on the much more difficult circumstances, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and so far Obama, have done worse. |
