I will try to respond to your other posts in a bit (I have some things to do right now), but this one I will respond to now. The balancing of the budget during the Clinton Administration was due to a confluence of factors, most notably the peace dividend and the Paygo rules established by the legislature during the Bush I Administration. To save time, I am going to quote myself in another thread:
<snip>Finally, regarding your opinion that President Obama and the Democrats are not interested in saving money, I think you are incorrect and I think you need to provide a cite. At least the Democrats have tried to institute paygo polices, first with theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Democratic House and Senate, signed by President Bush breaking his campaign promise of no-new-taxes), then by Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (Democratic House, Senate and Executive) in a party line vote. These policies were continued by the Republicans in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but allowed to lapse in 2002 with the Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Executive. When the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate, they made it a priority to reintroduce the pay as you go policies and made it a standing rule in the house (see page 36 of Rules of the House of Representatives, 110th Congress (note: pdf file)). They did renege on these rules as the recession got worse and they needed to pass President Bush’s 150 Billion Dollar Stimulus Package. The rule was modified by the 111th congress to have an emergency exemption, which allowed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Obama. Since then, President Obama signed the Statutory Pay as You Go Act of 2010 which passed on a party line vote. So, how about you show me how the Republicans are more interested in saving money than the Democrats, because I don’t buy it.