Which Party balanced the Budget in the 1990's?

Was it the Democrats or the Republicans who achieved “one of the supreme budgetary accomplishments in American history” ?

The Federal Budget of 1993 is one of the greatest and most important stories in modern U.S. political history. The story can be found easily with Google but let me summarize it here anyway. (The budget planned for four years, so dollar figures following need to be divided by 4 to get annual averages.)

At the time of Clinton’s election, the federal debt had grown to alarming proportions. Clinton’s 1993 budget cut spending by $250 billion, perhaps the largest spending cut in all of history. (This was offset by such things as interest on the ever-mounting debt, and $150 billion in new investments.) The 1993 budget achieved a further $250 billion in deficit reduction by raising taxes; the most controversial tax hike was that of the maximum marginal income tax rate (the rate payed by Bill Gates, George Soros, etc.) which was increased from 31% to 39.6%. As high as this might seem, 39% was still less than the rate during most of the Reagan Administration, and certainly less than under Eisenhower, when the rate was 91%.

What were the results of the 1993 budget? The deficit did fall: from $255 billion annually when Clinton took office, to almost nothing in 1997; and by Clinton’s last year there was a surplus of $236 billion. Moreover, from 1993 to 2000 U.S. employment fell from over 7% to 4%; constant-dollar GDP rose by 33% over the same period; and of course stock prices soared.

Contrary to right-wing dogma, U.S. entrepreneurs kept on entrepreneuring (and at an unprecedented rate) despite the 39.6% income tax. The 1993 Budget led directly to one of the most prosperous periods in American history. At the beginning of Clinton’s term, the federal debt was seen as a most important problem; by the end of the term the U.S. Treasury was redeeming its bonds at an unprecedented rate and there was concern that this would cause trouble! (Many contracts were tied to the price of Treasury debt instruments which were disappearing.)

Now who should get credit for the 1993 Budget? Let us review voting on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Bill of 1993.

This Bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 218 to 217. Every single Republican in the House voted against the Bill. The Bill went to the U.S. Senate where the vote was 50-50. Every single Republican Senator voted against the Bill. The Vice President ascended the dais of the Senate chamber and broke the tie; William Jefferson Clinton signed the Bill into Law; the biggest spending cuts in U.S. history were passed; and this budget ushered in an era of prosperity almost unmatched in modern U.S. history. Let me repeat: Not even one single Republican Congressman voted for this Budget. Republicans natter about spending cuts, but on the biggest cut ever, every single Republican stood up and said “Nay”. Of course they would: Raising taxes on the rich (to a level still less than they were under Reagan!) was “class warfare” and would doom America! :smack:

It is said that this was the very first time in all of history that major legislation passed without one single vote from the “opposition” party. Republicans led by Newt Gingrich appeared on TV, predicted a recession, and declared that the Democrats must accept complete responsibility for the consequences of their Budget. As we now know this Budget was central in rejuvenating America’s economy; and America never came remotely close to recession throughout the entire Clinton double term. The Democrats should be proud to accept “complete responsibility” for this.

Perhaps I should apologize for reciting this well-known story at great length … but I’m not sure it is well known. The modern Republican Party stands for nothing if not prevarication, bullshit, hypocrisy and the assumption that the American people want to be fed stupid drivel by commentators preaching to a lowest denominator, so I’m afraid even some Dopers might have been misled.

This thread was provoked by a post in another thread where I asked a Doper who’s probably a “fiscal conservative” to compare the “fiscal conservatism” of Reagan and Clinton. In his response he didn’t mention Reagan, but wrote:

(I’ve left that Doper unnamed, so that he can continue “fighting his own ignorance” anonymously. :cool: )

The quotes I’ve found by professional economists all praise Clinton’s 1993 Budget:

[ul][li]“liquidating the deficit ranks as one of the supreme budgetary accomplishments in American history.”[/li][li]“Without question, the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Bill has been remarkably successful in its goal of reducing the federal budget deficit.”[/ul][/li]
Of course the Republicans continued to apply monkey-wrenches to federal budgeting throughout the Clinton years. One instructive lesson about the nature of “Republican leaders” comes from a book by none other than right-winger Tom DeLay:

“Fiscal conservatives” seem to run away and hide when asked to put up facts or shut up. I’m posting this in GQ, though I’m afraid if right-wingers try to rebut it, a Moderator will need to convert it into a Joke Thread. :smiley:

What’s the debate here? Anyway, aren’t you conflating fiscal conservatism with social conservatism?

The same party claims to be both. Not that Republicans are actually fiscally conservative, but they claim to be.

The debate is over another Doper’s “Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Newt Gingrich and the Republicans who took over Congress balanced the budget. Clinton’s first act upon becoming President was an attempt to increase the deficit” which seems totally at odds with the facts I posted.

I’d be happy to be pointed to appropriate definitions for the different conservative ilks, but I thought the “fiscal” ones were the Budget balancers.

The answer of course is that neither party produced a budget surplus in in the '90s, because there was no budget surplus in the '90s. The public debt was reduced, but intergovernmental debt increased by more than the public debt was reduced, and off budget costs, most notably Social Security costs, increased. The national debt increased up every year in the 1990s, by hundreds of billions each year. The only year that didn’t occur was 2000, where it increased by “only” 17 billion.

You might be interested in this article, which comes from a clearly biased site…the author is a conservative who doesn’t like Clinton very much, but his numbers look right.

Neither. I did.

I started working on the President’s budget in 1992 and by golly it was balanced in record time. A couple of years later I left and look what happened.

I don’t think we need to get sidetracked into a discussion of whether “public debt” or “total national debt” is a more appropriate measure. If we agree “debt is bad”, then what is relevant is progress made. The numbers on deficit reduction during Clinton’s terms do appear impressive.

To form a judgement of whether the Social Security (etc.) problem detracts from Clinton’s accomplishment we’d want numbers to answer these questions:
[ul][li] How did “intra-gov holdings” change during Clinton’s terms compared with before and after?[/li][li] To what extent was such a change driven by demographics?[/li][li] Was there “fancy bookkeeping” to reduce public debt at the expense of such intra-gov debt?[/li][/ul]

The linked-to page you offer gives no clue to the needed answers. And, in any event, the raw facts of the “Clinton economy” are undisputed aren’t they? – Higher taxes, rising GDP, rising employment, rising stock prices, along with certain reductions in social spending.

Wikipedia has a nice plot of gross and public national debt, citing the Office of Management and Budget (large pdf, see p127-128). The late 1990s are visibly different from the periods before and after.

The President does not pass a budget. The President can propose things that he would like to see in the budget, but Congress can tell him to suck wind. Given the rancor towards Bill Clinton by the Republicans, do you really think that they were inclined to adopt his budget proposals? No. In fact, I recall a few government shutdowns for that very reason.

I’ve always attributed the budgetary success of the '90s to the rapid growth of the technology sector, relatively low oil prices, and wide availability of venture capital. All of these things allowed taxes to increase without damage to the economy. During the Clinton years, spending continued to increase (in constant dollars), but declined as a percentage of GDP. Meanwhile revenues went through the roof, increasing from 17.5%of GDP in 1993 to 20.9% in 2000 – that year, revenues increased to over two trillion dollars for the first time ever. After that, spending continued to increase while revenues declined.

I don’t give Clinton much credit for any of the economic activity, although it’s possible that his administration’s technology initiatives helped fuel the boom, and that successful foreign policy may have kept oil prices low. What I give him props for is raising taxes at exactly the right time, reaping the benefit of a short-lived boom, and maybe even helping to soften the landing when it all went bust.

Given that the budget started to turn around a year before Clinton took office, one could say that he simply rode upon Bush I’s coat tails. That he maintained the trend for 7 years is of course the impressive part.

But it is still worth handing Bush I some of the gratitude. The man had reneged on his pledge not to raise taxes based on the realities of the budget and for the sake of bipartisanship. Clinton attacked him on this point during the 1992 campaign for presidency, just to then go and raise taxes himself. There’s no knowing whether Bush would have striven all the way for a net-positive budget like Clinton did, but given that he’d be in the same position with no Cold War cleanup, nor any major economic emergencies occurring, we can presume that he might well have accomplished the same. War and responding to emergencies are the two things that really hit the budget. Lacking them, turning things about isn’t all that big a problem.

Oh. So it was just another triumph for the Republicans after all! :smack:

If the Republican Congress was primarily responsible for the fiscally responsible 90’s, why did they suddenly become such spendthrifts when George W. Bush took office? I’m in my 40’s and for my entire adult life the Republican Party has never demonstrated a single shred of fiscal responsibility at the national level. They talk about it a lot, but when it comes to actual policies and votes all they do is cut taxes and spend, spend, spend.

If you don’t like the answer you might get, don’t ask the question.

I’d heard this wasn’t an actual surplus, it was a projected surplus- one that didn’t materialize. Can anyone set me straight on that?

Well you might get any answer, for any question - after all, not all answers are correct ones. Does this mean we should never ask any questions ever?

The Communist Party. By losing power in the Soviet Union and allowing the United States to make major cuts in its defense budget.

Not going to be much of a debate without a devil’s advocate.

It was the Liberals that balanced the budget in the 90’s.

Oh, you’re talking about the US? Never mind, then.

Leaving aside the whole ‘balanced the budget’ part, which is incorrect, I’d say that the answer is that neither did. The boom of the 90’s came about because of a bunch of different factors, including the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the ‘peace dividend’), policies put in place that were just coming to fruition from the Bush administration (Bush the Elder, obviously), market forces and technology advances, and a synergy (sometimes good, sometimes bad) between a US president who deliberately moved towards the center and actively, um, borrowed from the good ideas in the opposing party (which sort of put a shot into them trying to fight him on things that he borrowed FROM them) and a congress dominated by the Republicans.

So…there were a bunch of factors involved. No one party or person can really take the credit, though everyone tries too. Personally, I think the US just does better with a Democrat in the WH and a Republican congress, though perhaps those times are also past, considering the levels of rancor and even hatred in the system these days…especially from the Republican side of things.

-XT