There was -- instead of merely doubling, the debt went up an additional 600 Billion, or 75 billion a year. That much I pointed out in my post, I think. But that's a fact.
But he also ended the Cold War by spending that money. Historians pretty much agree on that. And there has been strong research to show that the end of the Cold War was responsible for about 1/3 of the budget savings in Clinton's second term. In addition, there were considerable costs incurred in rebuilding the military from its dilapidated state coming into office. And there are the technology benefits from SDI which were substantial, but part of that $600B.
So, my question, is who gets credited with that?
The point I'm making is there is a systemic flaw in trying to do accounting by presidential term. As someone who has taught Accounting Theory, I can tell you that what is called for here is a four year fiscal period, with accruals at the end and reversals at the beginning of each period. To account for things "paid for" by one administration but not realized until another administration. If you did that, the chart would look totally different.
You would have, for example, accrued costs dumped on FDR for Social Security's unfunded liabilities. Accrued costs for Medicare/Medicaid unfunded liabilities on LBJ, in addition to the costs of plain underfunding and unfunded pension liabilities and guaranties.
It is a complicated business and obviously unworkable from an accounting standpoint. But do not ever think that a simple chart like you posted says anything meaning about cost and revenue by president. And yes, even the change in debt isn't a a truly meaningful metric, although it does convey useful information. |
