Replies

Clinton reached a balanced budget not becasue of anything he advocated, but because of what the GOP controlled Congress forced him to do. The Contract With America held his feet to the fire on spending. Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Trent Lott kept Clinton in check. They tightened spending, reformed welfare and gave us tax reform. The same economic steps Reagan took in the 1980`s. It's called, fiscal conservatism.

Just to be fair, from 1993 to 1995, the budget deficit as a % of GDP dropped from 4.6% to 3.1% (the 92-93 period from Bush I saw a drop from 5.5% to 4.6%, meaning he left it up .8% from the beginning of his term). So by the time the Contract with America rolled around, the deficit was the smallest it had been since 1981 as a % of GDP.

What the Contract did manage was to ensure that there would be a continuation of tight spending controls and that the tax hikes of the early 90s would be used for deficit reduction, as they should have, rather than massive spending increases.

Let's be fair. Bush did cut taxes three times and the impact on the economy was significant. The Reagan tax cuts of the 1980`s brought the top rate down from 70% to 50% to 28%. The Reagan tax reform package of 1981 reduced the tax burden, as a percentage of the annual budget, on Americans by 5.3%. The Bush tax cuts reduced the taxes by 3.8%, 2.5%, 2.7%. Total, 8.1%. Not quite as big as the Kennedy tax cut (8.8%) of 1964, but larger then Reagan's.

Here's the analysis by the Tax Foundation. Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts

If the President had cut spending early on, the way he cut taxes (8.1%), fiscal conservatives would be jumping for joy. Most would have accepted an across the board freeze. While tax cuts are part of a sound fiscal policy, if you don't cut spending some future Democratic president could use that as an impetus to raise taxes. In fact, this is exactly what occured during Bill Clinton's first term. Reagan held down social welfare and entitlement spending and handed things off to GHWBush. After his first year in office Bush41 spending was fiscally irresponsible. Not only did social welfare and entitlement spending go up, so did taxes. Probably more then half of the Bush43 tax cuts were needed to offset the Clinton tax increases of the 1990`s.