Stopped reading right there. Clinton had nothing to do with a budget surplus. A Republican controlled Congress controlled the purse strings. Just like with zero, a rat controlled congress gave him everything he wanted. If the author can't get the most basic facts right, how reliable will his analysis be?
Clinton got into office with the mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid.” There had been a minor recession shortly before the election, but it was already ending. The clinton years were good partly because congress kept him leashed in, but mostly because the Reagan tax cuts were finally kicking in to full effect.
But it is true that Bush1 folded and broke his promise not to raise taxes. And it’s true that Bush2 was an idiotically big spender, even before the Dems took over congress and made things even worse.
Why what for? Mike Shedlock did not claim that President Bush inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton. It was an Op-ed by David W. Wise
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/11/25/op-ed-not-your-grandfathers-republican-party/
I have said many time when ever the left claims that President Bush inherited a budget surplus from Billy Jeff, that he wouldn't have if Clinton didn't have a Republican Congress. At the time time 0bama can not claim that he inherited a bad economy and the high unemployment, because as everyone knows before the rats took over in January 2007 the economy was thriving and unemployment was practically nonexistent. BTW 0bama was part of the economy turning south because he voted for the deficit