To: ecommerceman who wrote (402958 ) 5/5/2003 4:57:55 PM From: Kenneth V. McNutt Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667 <<The New York Times, October 20, 2000 Taxes thrown off by the soaring stock market contributed handsomely to the surplus. So did higher tax rates on the rich, enacted just before their incomes surged ahead of other Americans' in the booming economy of the 1990's. Cutbacks in military spending after the cold war also helped significantly. Without these three windfalls , the budget would be in deficit today. The bull market and the surge in tax revenue from the rich by themselves brought the budget out of deficit. If the market had risen more slowly in the 1990's, or income had been distributed more evenly across the work force, then the current surplus of $81 billion would instead be a deficit approaching $100 billion, according to government estimates. And if military spending had simply held steady at the 1990 level of $289.8 billion, instead of falling, then an additional $261 billion would have been subtracted over the decade from the surplus. The nation, in sum, would have been struggling today with an annual budget deficit of more than $300 billion, about as high as the annual deficit has ever been for federal government operations other than Social >> Security. You will notice this from the venerable NY Times. Clinton's budget surplus(?) was built on the largest tax increases in history, an economic bubble created by Greenspan/Rubin easy money, and on the backs of the mnilitary he and Hillary so hated. Clinton was luckier than 3 peckered goat, as he has been all his life. The two most inadequate presidents ever, Clinton and his mentor Carter. The dubious pair. Neither with integrity. Ken