HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
No. Look at actual spending, receipts, gdp etc during the clinton years, and you'll quickly realize that the deficit was turned into a surplus for the most part because the economy boomed and receipts skyrocketed. Government spending didn't get reduced -- spending went way up. Government didn't "shrink" at all, it just looks like less because as a percentage of skyrocketing GDP with the advent of internet commerce the percentage is less.
We have had plenty of booming economies over the years, but that has not translated into reduction or elimination of deficits for the most part. The combination on government cutbacks (you did see the numbers I provided showing the largest drop in US government employees during Clinton's term?) and a fiscal policy targeting growth allowed for more receipts to balance the budget.
Government hardly grew much faster than inflation during Clinton's term, and it is a valid analysis to show government spending as a portion of GDP. It means growth was in the private sector and not via government spending (as is the case now).
Clinton raised taxes, streamlined government (scaling back staff and merging similar departments with overlapping responsibilities), and targeted spending towards encourage growth (empowerment zones, police, etc). If you really want to dig in and see what Clinton did while in office for the economy, you should read up on it and not rely on talking point sound bites.
Yes, government spending as a dollar amount increased during the Clinton years. But that has been the case every year for 60+ years (as far back as the data I'm seeing goes). I think inflation would guarantee that, if for no other reason. But only during the Clinton years has any of that been able to translate into a budget surplus. There have been quite a few instances, however, where government spending as a percentage of GDP went down, but never more than four consecutive years at a time. At least until Clinton took office and it went down 8 consecutive years.
As far as your claim of receipts "skyrocketing", here are the actual numbers:
1992 6342.3 17.21%
1993 6667.4 17.31%
1994 7085.2 17.76%
1995 7414.7 18.23%
1996 7838.5 18.54%
1997 8332.4 18.95%
1998 8793.5 19.58%
1999 9353.5 19.54%
2000 9951.5 20.35%
The dot com bubble started to grow in mid to late 1998, and really took off in 1999. By that time revenue had gone from 17.2% to 19.6%. The bubble pushed revenue to 20.3%. Seems like a non factor.
Also note that revenue as a percentage of GDP rose 3% over the duration of the Clinton presidency while spending dropped 4%. It wasn't a matter of revenue outpacing spending cuts, it was spending cuts outpacing revenue.
