National Debt by President

[dullard]

Once again - CONGRESS spends money, not the President. The only times that the President gets credit for fiscal conservativeness is when he vetoes deficit spending or when his party has the majority in Congress and thus uses his budgets. Accordingly, the President gets blame for fiscal laxity only when he fails to veto deficit spending or when his party has the majority in Congress and thus uses his budgets. As Clinton vetoed Republican budgets only to increase spending he deserves little credit for the Republican Congresses' fiscal conservatism under his watch. On the other hand, Bush II gets full blame for the Republican Congresses' irresponsible deficit spending as his Congresses were mostly Republican-ran and he vetoed nothing for fiscal reasons. Either way, showing debt by President is misleading.

By law the president must set the initial budget (which congress may tweak, but the negotiations start at the president's level). By law the president must readjust what congress has changed halfway through the budget process (which congress may tweak again). Then, by the constitution, the president must sign the budget.

To claim that the president has little to do with the budget is misleading.

 

[PeshakJang]

I think a better question is, if your debt goes up 10% this year, is it a requirement that you get a 10% pay raise soon?

I was clarifying his question... you're asking a completely different question.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Once again - CONGRESS spends money, not the President. The only times that the President gets credit for fiscal conservativeness is when he vetoes deficit spending or when his party has the majority in Congress and thus uses his budgets. Accordingly, the President gets blame for fiscal laxity only when he fails to veto deficit spending or when his party has the majority in Congress and thus uses his budgets. As Clinton vetoed Republican budgets only to increase spending he deserves little credit for the Republican Congresses' fiscal conservatism under his watch. On the other hand, Bush II gets full blame for the Republican Congresses' irresponsible deficit spending as his Congresses were mostly Republican-ran and he vetoed nothing for fiscal reasons. Either way, showing debt by President is misleading.

Well Obama has had a Dem controlled congress from day one and since that day he/they have managed to add another $2.7+ Trillion to the debt.

I really didn't think anyone could do worse than Bush if they tried. Guess I was wrong.

 

[JTsyo]

I thought Clinton had a surplus on the budget but I see no negative numbers. Guess the surpluses were canceled out by other years.

 

[werepossum]

By law the president must set the initial budget (which congress may tweak, but the negotiations start at the president's level). By law the president must readjust what congress has changed halfway through the budget process (which congress may tweak again). Then, by the constitution, the president must sign the budget.

To claim that the president has little to do with the budget is misleading.

That is not correct. The President submits a budget request, not a budget, outlying his preferred spending levels broken down into a score or so of departments. This has no legal standing and is not binding on Congress, but merely gives Congress a baseline of the President's wishes and (by custom, not law) documentation of why he thinks these levels are appropriate. Congress is free to adopt this budget entirely, adopt this budget as the basis of negotiations, or ignore it completely.

Both the House and the Senate budget committees then draft budget proposals which may or may not resemble the President's budget request, and then the joint conference committee hammers out one budget resolution which is voted on by both chambers. Assuming this passes, this is binding on Congress (by Congress' internal rules anyway.) It's not unusual for the budget resolution to be considerably different than what Congress actually spends over the year, but this is the first level at which spending is determined. If the President is of the same party as Congress, then his budget may be used as the starting basis, but there is no requirement to do so even then and budget requests of presidents whose party is out of power in Congress are basically ignored. Once Congress has a passed budget resolution, then each chamber crafts various appropriations bills to actually authorize that spending. As each chamber passes its version of each appropriations bill, these go to another joint conference committee to be reconciled. If the reconciled appropriations bills are not exactly as passed by a chamber, and they seldom are, then that chamber must re-vote on the reconciled bill. Only then is each appropriations bill sent for the President's signature.

The President does of course have an ongoing role in Congress' deliberations, as he will be cajoling, threatening, and bribing to get as much of his agenda as possible through Congress. And he retains the threat of a veto. But obviously by far the bulk of the decisions are made by Congress - unless, as I said, the President's party also controls Congress.

 

[dullard]

That is not correct. The President submits a budget request, not a budget, outlying his preferred spending levels broken down into a score or so of departments. This has no legal standing and is not binding on Congress, but merely gives Congress a baseline of the President's wishes and (by custom, not law) documentation of why he thinks these levels are appropriate. Congress is free to adopt this budget entirely, adopt this budget as the basis of negotiations, or ignore it completely...

Clearly, you haven't researched this at all. Start with the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Yes, it has been amended many times, but the point is still the same if you just read up on that. By that LAW (not custom, but law with legal standing), the president MUST set the budget to start the negotiations.

In the first round, nothing in the budget itself is legally binding. Congress and the president may both alter the budget later. But, certain issues (such as allowing senate filibusters) are binding for that budget year. As we saw in the last year, the 50-seat vs 60-seat definition of a filibuster is a major part of what actually gets passed in the end.

Also, in the first round, the president gets strong say in discretionary spending caps for the budget.

If you can't even get the first part of that right, I see no reason on commenting on the rest of your post.

 

[werepossum]

Clearly, you haven't researched this at all. Start with the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Yes, it has been amended many times, but the point is still the same if you just read up on that. By that LAW (not custom, but law with legal standing), the president MUST set the budget to start the negotiations.

In the first round, nothing in the budget itself is legally binding. Congress and the president may both alter the budget later. But, certain issues (such as allowing senate filibusters) are binding for that budget year. As we saw in the last year, the 50-seat vs 60-seat definition of a filibuster is a major part of what actually gets passed in the end.

Also, in the first round, the president gets strong say in discretionary spending caps for the budget.

If you can't even get the first part of that right, I see no reason on commenting on the rest of your post.

You might want to actually read your own wiki links AND their source material. The President is required by law to submit a budget; this is his budget request, as I stated. Note that this is binding on no one, it is merely the President's vision of the budget. Congress then makes its own budget proposal, in the form of a budget resolution. Note that this IS binding, at least in theory.

From Desimone's "The Making of the Federal Budget", first source for your wiki link:

Like the president's budget, the congressional budget resolution is a blueprint that includes recommended spending levels for both discretionary appropriations and mandatory programs such as Social Security. It also outlines changes in taxes and other revenues.

Budget resolutions carry relatively little weight in guiding the actual tax-and-spending decisions formalized in subsequent legislation.

Again, the appropriations bills determine the actual spending. Congress' budget resolution has "relatively little weight"; the President's budget proposal can have much weight to none at all depending on his popularity and the political control of Congress. Remember, Clinton's much larger budgets were never considered as the basis for the Republican Congress' smaller budgets. Some years not even a single Democrat would even introduce them, much less vote for them.

The Power of the Purse

The United States Congress is distinguished from nearly every other legislative body in the world by the degree to which it exercises control over the government's budgetary policies. Defined by the Constitution, this so-called "power of the purse" establishes Congress' primary role in fiscal policy; that is, taxation, borrowing, and spending decisions.

I urge you to go back and look at previous President's budget requests versus actual spending. You'll find they track somewhat if presented to a Congress of the same party, and they track not at all if presented to a Congress of the opposing party. Where Congress is split or is barely controlled by one or the other party, the strength of the President (popularity as well as ability to go directly to the people and build support for his policies) comes into play. While in theory the President is a coequal partner with Congress is crafting the budget, in practice this is true only if his party also controls Congress.

This is NOT 1921. Here's a better wiki link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

EDIT
Here's a more official link. http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/98-721.pdf
Note especially:

The President’s budget is required by law to be submitted to Congress early in the legislative session. While the budget is only a request to Congress, the power to formulate and submit the budget is a vital tool in the President’s direction of the executive branch and of national policy. The President’s proposals often influence congressional revenue and spending decisions, though the extent of the influence varies from year to year and depends more on political and fiscal conditions than on the legal status of the budget.

I have bolded the parts that say the exact same thing I said initially. Congress spends the money, and the extents of the President's influence on that process, be it insignificant, an equal partner, or even a dominant partner depends entirely on two things: Whether his party controls Congress, and his ability (through personal popularity and/or powers of persuasion) to go directly to the people and influence Congress directly.

 

[dullard]

This is NOT 1921. Here's a better wiki link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

From your link:
"The President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) requires the President to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January"

From your earlier post:

"This has no legal standing ... but merely gives ... the President's wishes...(by custom, not law)..."

It is interesting how you are now posting links that contradict your earlier posts. Keep correcting yourself and I won't have to anymore. Thanks.

 

[werepossum]

From your link:
"The President submits the budget request each year to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) requires the President to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January"

From your earlier post:

"This has no legal standing ... but merely gives ... the President's wishes...(by custom, not law)..."

It is interesting how you are now posting links that contradict your earlier posts. Keep correcting yourself and I won't have to anymore. Thanks.

Perhaps I should restate it so that even you can understand it.
1. The President is required by law to submit a budget.
2. This is a budget request only; it has no legal standing with Congress, meaning Congress is under no legal obligation to start its budget from the President's budget request or to consider the President's wishes and priorities in formulating its budget resolutions, very much less the actual appropriations bills that dictate the actual spending during that President's term.

Here's a more official link. http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/98-721.pdf
Note especially:

The President’s budget is required by law to be submitted to Congress early in the legislative session. While the budget is only a request to Congress, the power to formulate and submit the budget is a vital tool in the President’s direction of the executive branch and of national policy. The President’s proposals often influence congressional revenue and spending decisions, though the extent of the influence varies from year to year and depends more on political and fiscal conditions than on the legal status of the budget.

I have bolded the parts that say the exact same thing I said initially. Congress spends the money, and the extents of the President's influence on that process, be it insignificant, an equal partner, or even a dominant partner depends entirely on two things: Whether his party controls Congress, and his ability (through personal popularity and/or powers of persuasion) to go directly to the people and influence Congress directly.

I now return you to your study of government via Sesame Street.

 

[dullard]

Perhaps I should restate it so that even you can understand it. I now return you to your study of government via Sesame Street.

Somewhere you missed where I said: "By law the president must set the initial budget (which congress may tweak, but the negotiations start at the president's level). " And you missed where I said "In the first round, nothing in the budget itself is legally binding. Congress and the president may both alter the budget later."

You must have missed those words, because you keep trying to tell me that exact same thing. Why are you arguing with me by using my own words? All you are doing is agreeing when you say the same thing as me. Keep going and soon you'll have contradicted your entire self.

Sorry, I don't watch Sesame Street. Now that you admit you think you get realistic government lessons from it, it reveals your feable attempts in this thread.

So far, we have established 3 things:
1) You were wrong about thing such as "custom vs. law".
2) The president starts the budget process by law. It isn't binding yet, but certain ways that the budget can be altered are binding, and certain discretionary items often are untouched or minimally touched by congress.
3) You keep parroting what I say, so you must agree with me.

Shall we continue?

 

[halik]

Very interesting data on national debt I came across:

(1 or 2) = his first and second term
T = National Debt In trillions of dollars today.
D/R = Dem or Rep

These are debt this president ADDed to total during his term.

D-Roosevelt/Truman (1): $0.01 T
D-Harry Truman (1): $0.01 T
R-Dwight Eisenhower (1): $0.01 T
R-Dwight Eisenhower (2): $0.02 T
D-John F Kennedy (1): $0.03 T
D-Lyndon Johnson (1): $0.05 T
R-Richard Nixon (1): $0.07 T
R-Nixon/Ford (2): $0.19 T
D-Jimmy Carter (1): $0.28 T
R-Ronald Reagan (1): $0.66 T
R-Ronald Reagan (2): $1.04 T
R-George H. W. Bush (1): $1.40 T
D-Bill Clinton (1): $1.18 T
D-Bill Clinton (2): $0.45 T
R-George W. Bush (1): $1.73 T
R-George W. Bush (2): $2.63 T

Is this in nominal or real dollars?

 

[werepossum]

Somewhere you missed where I said: "By law the president must set the initial budget (which congress may tweak, but the negotiations start at the president's level). " And you missed where I said "In the first round, nothing in the budget itself is legally binding. Congress and the president may both alter the budget later."

You must have missed those words, because you keep trying to tell me that exact same thing. Why are you arguing with me by using my own words? All you are doing is agreeing when you say the same thing as me. Keep going and soon you'll have contradicted your entire self.

Sorry, I don't watch Sesame Street. Now that you admit you think you get realistic government lessons from it, it reveals your feable attempts in this thread.

So far, we have established 3 things:
1) You were wrong about thing such as "custom vs. law".
2) The president starts the budget process by law. It isn't binding yet, but certain ways that the budget can be altered are binding, and certain discretionary items often are untouched or minimally touched by congress.
3) You keep parroting what I say, so you must agree with me.

Shall we continue?

Since you are evidently unable to read what I post and yet you think I am parroting what you say, I think that would be pointless. The process is what it is. If you think the President sets the budget, well, it's a free country. Believe what you wish.

 

[JSt0rm]

lololol werepossum u retard. Fucking own it.

 

[werepossum]

<sigh> The worst thing about stupid people is their tendency to run in packs. I'll recap the score then for JSt0rm's benefit, in the hopes that his keeper might explain it to him.

Somewhere you missed where I said: "By law the president must set the initial budget (which congress may tweak, but the negotiations start at the president's level). " And you missed where I said "In the first round, nothing in the budget itself is legally binding. Congress and the president may both alter the budget later."

By law the President must submit a budget to Congress. This is a budget request, as I showed using the government's own web site. There is absolutely nothing requiring that negotiations start at the President's level. Thus the term "request".

You must have missed those words, because you keep trying to tell me that exact same thing. Why are you arguing with me by using my own words? All you are doing is agreeing when you say the same thing as me. Keep going and soon you'll have contradicted your entire self.

Dullard's point is that the President sets the budget agenda, period, and that Congress negotiates from his budget. My point is that this is not necessarily the case. Congress, having the power of the purse, is perfectly free to ignore the President's budget. The President being required by law to submit a budget does not equal Congress being required by law to adopt that budget as its basis of negotiations. I would think that would be plain to anyone capable of posting on a political forum, but evidently the bar is a bit higher than that.

Sorry, I don't watch Sesame Street. Now that you admit you think you get realistic government lessons from it, it reveals your feable attempts in this thread.

Here the aptly named dullard uses the tested and true method of "I know you are, but what am I?" Note the misspelled "feeble", which would indicate that others try not to use that word in his presence. I imagine "slow" is also verboten.

So far, we have established 3 things:
1) You were wrong about thing such as "custom vs. law".

My quote:

That is not correct. The President submits a budget request, not a budget, outlying his preferred spending levels broken down into a score or so of departments. This has no legal standing and is not binding on Congress, but merely gives Congress a baseline of the President's wishes and (by custom, not law) documentation of why he thinks these levels are appropriate. Congress is free to adopt this budget entirely, adopt this budget as the basis of negotiations, or ignore it completely.

Those with the barest modicum of structural knowledge of the English language will no doubt notice that I stated NOT that the President's submitting a budget was by custom rather than by law, but that the accompanying documentation arguing why the President's budgetary choices are the right ones IS by custom rather than by law. As we are not conversing in Latin, one is not free to rearrange another's sentences and then ascribe that meaning.

2) The president starts the budget process by law. It isn't binding yet, but certain ways that the budget can be altered are binding, and certain discretionary items often are untouched or minimally touched by congress.

I have no argument with the first sentence, although it is not necessarily true. The President is required by law to submit a budget, true, but there is nothing that says Congress cannot begin its budgetary deliberations before receiving the President's budget request. The second sentence assumes again that the President's budget request is THE budget. Unless Congress wishes to use the President's budget request as THE budget, this is not the case. Instead, each chamber of Congress adopts its own budget proposal, then a joint Congressional committee will draft one Congressional budget proposal from the two. If both Chambers pass this resolution by a majority vote, then this budget is in theory binding on Congress. My main disagreement with dullard is that he insists that the President's budget is the core of this budget resolution, when in fact it quite often has little to nothing to do with it.

3) You keep parroting what I say, so you must agree with me.

Shall we continue?

At this point dullard is obviously unable to comprehend what I am saying and thus, discern where we differ. Thus at that point I gave up arguing, or did until yet another chuckling idiot wandered by and I gave it one last attempt to (no doubt unsuccessfully) avoid a stream of misspelled Forchan grunting.

 

[JSt0rm]

ok buddy you won.

 

[dali71]

lololol werepossum u retard. Fucking own it.

 

[Jhhnn]

My main disagreement with dullard is that he insists that the President's budget is the core of this budget resolution, when in fact it quite often has little to nothing to do with it.

That's an assertion YOU need to back up to make your argument credible at all. Have at it.

 

[werepossum]

That's an assertion YOU need to back up to make your argument credible at all. Have at it.

From http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/98-721.pdf:

The President’s budget is required by law to be submitted to Congress early in the legislative session. While the budget is only a request to Congress, the power to formulate and submit the budget is a vital tool in the President’s direction of the executive branch and of national policy. The President’s proposals often influence congressional revenue and spending decisions, though the extent of the influence varies from year to year and depends more on political and fiscal conditions than on the legal status of the budget.

This is from the official House budget site, circa 1998. It really can't be made any more clear than that, so if this doesn't do it for you, feel free to enjoy your imaginary world where the President is king.

I think most people will see a huge difference between "negotiation starts with the President's budget" and "the President’s proposals often influence congressional revenue and spending decisions, though the extent of the influence varies from year to year and depends more on political and fiscal conditions than on the legal status of the budget." But I could be wrong, maybe it's only smart people.

 

[Tom]

Why no current numbers for Obama? I'd bet in his first two years he's already eclipsed what Dubbya was able to fuck up in eight.


Edit: 2,768,317,632,723.99 added under Obama and the Dems in Congress.

So that was a slight exaggeration. It took Bush about six years to rack up that much.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Cool site.

Obama inherited 3 things from Bush that have largely determined the deficit so far.

1. bad tax policy, ie Bush tax cuts.

2. war

3. deep recession that required government stimulus to avoid depression, that is pretty much unanimously agreed to by economists and even most politicians.

I'm not bringing that up to bash Bush, but to frame a question..

Who would have done better the last 2 years ? Really ?

The only real proposed alternative is/was to extend or increase the Bush tax cuts, stay in Iraq indefinitely, and vague references to spending cuts, which as been the rallying cry of conservatives for decades, but they NEVER follow through.

So again, how would that scenario have made the deficit picture better ?

 

[werepossum]

Obama inherited 3 things from Bush that have largely determined the deficit so far.

1. bad tax policy, ie Bush tax cuts.

2. war

3. deep recession that required government stimulus to avoid depression, that is pretty much unanimously agreed to by economists and even most politicians.

I'm not bringing that up to bash Bush, but to frame a question..

Who would have done better the last 2 years ? Really ?

The only real proposed alternative is/was to extend or increase the Bush tax cuts, stay in Iraq indefinitely, and vague references to spending cuts, which as been the rallying cry of conservatives for decades, but they NEVER follow through.

So again, how would that scenario have made the deficit picture better ?

Conservatives most certainly did follow through after the 1994 elections. Clinton submitted budgets that showed soaring deficits forever; the Republican Congress passed budgets that limited the growth (and admittedly in a very few cases actually were real cuts) which allowed the economy to catch up to, and then pass, the government. What happened was that these conservatives became enamored of government solutions and, once they had a Republican President to get the supposed credit, began spending like Democrats.

And the answer to that is term limits.

 

[Tom]

Conservatives most certainly did follow through after the 1994 elections. Clinton submitted budgets that showed soaring deficits forever; the Republican Congress passed budgets that limited the growth (and admittedly in a very few cases actually were real cuts) which allowed the economy to catch up to, and then pass, the government. What happened was that these conservatives became enamored of government solutions and, once they had a Republican President to get the supposed credit, began spending like Democrats.

And the answer to that is term limits.

That isn't what happened. The first thing that happened, and the most significant thing that happened, was a rational, fiscally responsible tax increase passed by the Democrats alone, a patriotic act for which they gave up control of Congress. Then the Republicans tried to affect a political coup by means of a government shut down and were taken to the woodshed by Clinton.

Then the well chastised Republicans did what they always do, talk loudly, while fiscally conservative Democrats, blue dogs et al, and a veritable handful of responsible Republicans, along with Clinton's administration, kept a fairly good lid on spending. Giving all the credit for that to "Republican Congress" is a wild fiction.

 

[werepossum]

That isn't what happened. The first thing that happened, and the most significant thing that happened, was a rational, fiscally responsible tax increase passed by the Democrats alone, a patriotic act for which they gave up control of Congress. Then the Republicans tried to affect a political coup by means of a government shut down and were taken to the woodshed by Clinton.

Then the well chastised Republicans did what they always do, talk loudly, while fiscally conservative Democrats, blue dogs et al, and a veritable handful of responsible Republicans, along with Clinton's administration, kept a fairly good lid on spending. Giving all the credit for that to "Republican Congress" is a wild fiction.

LOL You left out the part where Republicans kicked unicorns and ate babies.

Honestly, you loony lefties are even trying to be plausible anymore. When the Republicans have the purse strings you want Democrats to have the credit, and when the Democrats have the purse strings you want to blame Republicans.

 

[Tom]

LOL You left out the part where Republicans kicked unicorns and ate babies.

Honestly, you loony lefties are even trying to be plausible anymore. When the Republicans have the purse strings you want Democrats to have the credit, and when the Democrats have the purse strings you want to blame Republicans.

I'm not interested in credit, just what happened. Look at the votes cast in Congress during the 90s by Democrats and Republicans and it will bear out what I said. The facts are that since Reagan the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than Republicans. The Republicans are the cut taxes party, which isn't fiscally responsible.

This idea that the Republicans cut spending or held the line on spending, in the face of opposition from Democrats and Clinton, is a complete myth.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not interested in credit, just what happened. Look at the votes cast in Congress during the 90s by Democrats and Republicans and it will bear out what I said. The facts are that since Reagan the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than Republicans. The Republicans are the cut taxes party, which isn't fiscally responsible.

This idea that the Republicans cut spending or held the line on spending, in the face of opposition from Democrats and Clinton, is a complete myth.

From Business Week, circa June 26, 1995: http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1995/b343062.arc.htm

BILL CLINTON, DEFICIT HAWK

The great Battle of the Budget is over. The hawks have won. Oh, there are details to be thrashed out. And there probably will be another crisis or two before President Clinton signs a Deficit Reduction Act of 1995. But faced with overwhelming pressure from the GOP majority in Congress and a dramatic shift in public opinion, Clinton quit fighting on June 13. In his six-minute prime-time speech, he joined the balanced-budget crowd, producing a plan to eliminate the deficit in 10 years. "Finally," says American Standard CEO Emmanuel A. Kampouris, "the President is coming forward."

The framework of Clinton's plan follows the GOP's lead: He would trim growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare spending and make deep cuts in most other programs. And he would cut taxes. The only major difference: The President insists on more money for education. Although specifics differ from the House and Senate blueprints, the outlines of a megadeal are falling into place. Says Senator Joseph T. Lieberman (D-Conn.): "It is now inevitable that we will have a balanced budget by a [specific] date." Adds Frank Shafroth, chief lobbyist for the National League of Cities: "The shape of the debate is fundamentally changed."

The political landscape is changed as well. In a single week, Clinton has abandoned liberal Democratic orthodoxy. For instance, he only mildly criticized Supreme Court decisions that cut deeply into federal affirmative-action and school-desegregation programs, then cut loose his party's congressional leadership on budget policy. House Democratic leaders and other members of the party's traditional wing are furious. But centrist Democrats argue that it's long past time for Clinton to adapt to a changing electorate. "We need to tell the liberal Democratic congressional wing to shut up," says consultant Brian Lunde. "Their agenda is no longer relevant."

Clinton's political calculus tells him he doesn't need liberals to pass a balanced budget. And while Republicans publicly grumble that his plan is too little, too late, they're privately cheering that he's dealing on their terms. Further, the GOP majority in Congress probably can muster 75 House Democrats and 20 Senate Democrats to back big spending cuts--as long as tax cuts are small. Says Representative Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.), a deficit hawk: "For the first time in my years in Congress, we have a majority of the House and Senate and the President all saying that balancing the budget is a priority."

To reach out for a deal, the President has made four key concessions:

n Health care. Medicare and Medicaid are squarely on the table. Clinton had been unwilling to change either program in his February budget plan. Now, he claims he would trim the rate of growth for both by some $153 billion over seven years. That's less than half the House or Senate savings. But outside experts say Clinton may be underestimating the extent of his cuts. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget figures that Clinton and the Senate are only about $6 billion a year apart in their health proposals--less than 2&#37; of what would be spent in 2002 without changes.

-- Welfare. In another reversal and a bow to reality, Clinton now estimates that a reform plan will save $38 billion in planned government spending for the safety net. Previously, he backed welfare overhauls that required costly job and training programs.

-- Taxes. Clinton would still trim taxes for families with children and for education expenses. His $100 billion plan is far less than the House's $350 billion proposal. But both sides have plenty of room to give, especially since the Senate would not cut taxes at all until the budget is balanced.

-- A balanced-budget deadline. Ten years. Seven years. Outside the Beltway, few seem to care. "The timetable as such is not a great issue. It's important only as a signal of resolve," says Van Dorn Ooms, senior vice-president of the Committee for Economic Development, a business-oriented research group.

The fate of the budget is now up to congressional Republicans. They can still blow up an agreement by demanding a massive tax cut. But the betting is that they won't. That means a grand budget compromise is finally on the way.

If you remember, the budget proposal he submitted thereafter - his fifth of the year - was in line with those budget resolutions already passed by the House and Senate. Clinton was forced to fall in line with the GOP's plans or appear totally irrelevant, as his previous budgets were being ignored. His previous budgets all showed increasing deficits out to ten years, after which a miracle was assume to happen. Only under GOP pressure did he agree to actual decreases in rates of government growth. And only after Clinton caved did enough of the Democrats sign on to allow the GOP to pass appropriations bills actually balancing the budget. (And of course, even that was only balanced by spending all the excess Social Security money that came in, and discounting later off-budget spending.) And of course, Clinton did veto some of those appropriations bills - on the grounds that the "cuts" were too deep and more money should be spent.

From the wiki on the government shut-down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995

Background

When the previous fiscal year ended September 30, the president and the Republican-controlled Congress hadn't passed a budget. Congress wanted additional cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental controls, and the EITC, the budget. The difference in opinion resulted from differing estimates of economic growth, medical inflation, and anticipated revenues.[1]

To keep the government running in times of deficit, it is necessary to increase the limit of debt that the Treasury Department is authorized to accrue. In response to Clinton's unwillingness to make the budget cuts that the Republicans wanted, Newt Gingrich threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit, putting the country in default. Since Gingrich expected Clinton to fold, the result was a game of chicken between the two. Economically, the result would be a shaking investor confidence and higher interest rates, which would increase the cost of borrowing money.[1]

Since a new budget hadn't been approved, October 1 started with the entire federal government running on continuing resolution, which authorizes funding for departments until new budgets are approved. The existing continuing resolution was set to expire on November 13 at midnight, at which point non-essential government services would be forced to be shut down in order to prevent the country from defaulting on its debt. Congress made many attempts to pass their cuts, which Clinton denounced as "backdoor efforts".[1]

Note that Congress (run by the GOP) wants cuts, and Clinton opposes those cuts. Your contention that Clinton and the Democrats led the push for a balanced budget is merely partisan foolishness.

From CNN circa December 18, 1995, Clinton vetos GOP appropriations bills: http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/12-18/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the third day of a new partial government shutdown, some federal workers were being sent home and President Clinton vetoed Republican-passed spending bills covering several cabinet-level agencies. Clinton objects to provisions in the measures that include aspects of the Republican legislative platform The measures would have provided funding for the Veterans Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

A veto was expected later in the day on a bill covering the State, Justice and Commerce departments.

Today's lesson, children, is that if you simply must tell a lie, don't tell a lie that is easily disproved. If you wish to bash Republicans, simply point to their performance from 2001 through 2006 - or just make vague accusations that Republicans are racists or eat babies.