[ QUOTE ]
I seem to remember the repubs trying to trim budget dollars in the Clinton years. Not cutting the budget but growing it at a slower pace. Every dem in the country was running around screaming "draconian cuts" to pay for "tax cuts for the rich" blah blah blah. "Kids will be starving from not getting govt breakfast at school"....all this because the budget grows at 7% instead of 10%. then the govt shut downs happen and the polls say America blames the repubs......Now we are all screwed because both parties spend like crazy.....I SAY BRING ON THE DRACONIAN CUTS...AND THEN CUT SOME MORE.
At least the repubs tried back then....but the dems were successful with thier campaign of lies about the budget.
The funny thing is when they do cut taxes....revenue goes up...investment leads to jobs, which lead to more taxpayers, and so on. We do not live in a static economy where revenues raise along side tax rates. You would think the dems would be for more revenue going to the govt....I'm sure there are a thousand redundant programs they have in mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
This chart contradicts your claims. With only 4% growth the Clinton administration was dramatically better at limiting spending increases than any other in the last 40 years. What does that say about the "dems campaign of lies about the budget"?
The Clinton administration also grew revenue the most, despite raising the top tax rate. Bush's 7% revenue growth is the lowest in the last 40 years. Maybe lower tax rates sometimes result in less revenue?
With the combination of excellent revenue growth, minimal spending increases, and some accounting tricks, the federal budget made it to even for a year under Clinton. Then, "9/11 changed everything", by which I mean 9/11 instantly wiped out the stifling balanced budget requirements, with much rejoicing by all in Congress.