No budget surplus under Clinton???

[carrowsboy]

This was printed in my local paper. This doesn't sound right to me. What do you think?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785273720&path=%21editorials%21letters&s=1045855935005

"Clinton Budget Surplus Never Existed
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Please . . . in the spirit of accuracy, will you not print any more letters claiming a budget surplus existed during the Clinton years?

While most exchanges in the letters section express differences of opinion, there are occasionally a few that deal with matters of fact. The federal budget is one such factual issue. There was no budget surplus during the eight Clinton budget years, and the nation's deficit increased by approximately 43 percent during his presidential tenure.

Those who choose to dispute that fact should go to the Treasury Department's Website and find the Bureau of Public Debt's numbers. William Ryan. midlothian."

[usregimechange]

1. Nope we were in the black and the national debt was decreasing

[flaminbats]

10. Nixon and Ford did better than Reagan and Bush...but why?

Reagan had a Republican Senate, Bush II had both a Republican House and Senate. Nixon and Ford both HAD to work with a Democratic House and Senate. Even under Reagan after 86 and later under Bush I, the plans passed by the Democratic House and Senate eventually cleared the way for those surpluses during the Clinton years.

Interesting that whenever Democrats control both Congress and the White House..we have large surpluses and little wasteful spending, but when Republicans control the White House or Congress..wasteful spending and deficits always explode!

[SaveElmer]

2. Probably confusing the deficit with the debt...

Is all that I can think!

[Yupster]

3. I think the paper is confusing defecit and debt

There was a budget surplus under Clinton his last year of office.

Now if you decide not to hide the actual defecit by counting the social security surplus as part of the budget, then you might be able to claim there was no surplus that last year. I'm not sure what the numbers would be. They'd be pretty close to even.

Anyway, there is no way you can say the defecit increased 43 % under Clinton.

You could say the debt increased 43 % under Clinton.

I think the author is confusing those two terms.

Hope that made sense.

[mzmolly]

4. Bullshit. - Just more desperation from Freepland.

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html

The Largest Surplus in History:

The $123 billion surplus in 1999 is the largest dollar surplus in history, even after adjusting for inflation;
The surplus, expected to be about 1.4% of GDP, is the largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951;
1999 is the second year in a row of surplus, marking the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57;
This is the first time in U.S. history that we've experienced seven years in a row of fiscal improvement.

The Largest Debt Reduction in History:

Over the last two years, America has paid down $140 billion in public debt, the largest debt pay-down ever;
The debt held by the public is $1.7 trillion lower than was projected when President Clinton took office;
As a result, in 1999 alone, interest payments on the debt were $91 billion lower than projected.

[noahmijo]

5. That's bullshit

It was a PROJECTED surplus, meaning if things kept going the way they were going within about 10 years we were to see a MASSIVE surplus.

What is sadder is that Clinton wanted to devote the surplus to Social Security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/president012099.htm

[On the Road]

6. The 2d Paragraph Does Confuse Debt and Deficit

"the nation's deficit increased by approximately 43 percent during his presidential tenure"

But I believe what the writer was trying to say was that the cumulative defecit during all of Clinton's years in office was negative when you factor in the deficits during the early years with the surpluses at the end.

Which may be true, but it's an absolutely laughable argument, as the chart makes clear.

[happyslug]

7. True only if you do NOT count the Social Security Surplus.

Clinton was getting close to balancing the NON-Social Security budget but had NOT yet done it when his term ended. On the other hand he had a surplus if you included the surplus from collecting Social Security (SS) Taxes. The SS surplus has been used for years to minimize the deficient so Clinton just continued the tradition of counting the SS surplus with the rest of the Federal Budget (And this continues to this day, the non-social Security Deficient is a lot worse than the Deficient Bush cites foe like every President since Reagan he includes the Social Security Surplus).

[TahitiNut]

8. Well, not really. Clinton had an "on-budget" surplus in FY2000.

"On-budget" is the terminology for that part of the Federal budget that excludes a variety of entitlement programs with reserves, including OASI.

[RaulGroom]

9. This is my hometown paper.

It is edited by right-wing idiots. I would say that for humor value about a lot of papers that are merely right-leaning, but in this case, the editors are actual idiots. I doubt they can drink a glass of juice without getting their shirts all sticky.

If you go to the Bureau of Public Debt, you can see what this guy is driving at. If you aren't familiar with the way the budget works, you might think he's right. Check out his numbers here:

Bureau of Public Debt Historical Debt Outstanding.

Basically, look at it this way. Clinton took over in 1993. Let's say he inherits the debt at Sep 1992 level, 4.06 trillion dollars. During his eight years in office it grows to 5.67 trillion dollars, increasing each year.

So Bill Clinton's running up the government's credit cards, right? All this business about surpluses is just bogus!

Well, not exactly. If you look over at the BPD's Debt Outstanding by Type of Debt table, you see that actually during the Clinton years the publicly held debt was shrinking, but it was being made up by increases in the "Intragovernmental Holdings" piece of the debt. This is (mainly) the Social Security trust fund and it grows at a rate that is totally out of the president's control.

But as I often caution people on matters such as these, don't spend too long trying to talk people like this out of their delusions. Obviously as soon as this guy found a piece of evidence that seemed to say what he wanted it to say, he stopped looking. If he had bothered to check out the CBO Historical Budget Data he would have seen that clearly, the Clinton budgets were in an on-budget surplus in 1999 and 2000, and in a total surplus in 1998 as well.

If he had bothered to go to the CBO webpage, he would have seen that they list only the relevant National Debt number along with their budget data - the amount of debt held by the public. This number did increase under Clinton, but purely because he had to take a couple of years to shake the massive Bush deficits.

[kentuck]

11. Even without the SS surplus added in, there was still a surplus..

Bush had a surplus of approximately $270 billion to work with the first year and a projected surplus of $5 trillion dollars. In fact, Clinton paid down some of the national debt with the surplus.