No, deficit spending was not completely eliminated. In fact the national debt has gone up every year since 1957. The least it increased under Clinton was by ~18 billion. But this is not the same as eliminated.

Actually, I wrote a paper on this at the 1998 STAIF conference (and the idea has been kicking around since the early nineties at least). But Ed should be credited for actually going out and investing the time and money to help make it happen.

Yes, there was no discernable plan (other than to raise taxes). He talked about having a plan, with varying numbers of years before it would reach fruition, depending on the date and the audience, but there is no evidence of an actual plan.

The deficit reductions during his first two years in office were threfore accidental.

Yes, to the degree that any deficit reduction resulting from a recovering economy is accidental. What was Mr. Clinton’s “plan” for reducing the deficit that actually resulted in a reduced deficit in the first two years?

Once the Republicans swept into power in congress, the only “plan” which they gave voice to was “more tax cuts!,” and although they largely failed in this regard, it was an effective smokescreen for their real, *secret* plan. Which was to keep taxes relatively level, and eliminate deficit spending by selflessly reducing the flow of pork into their districts, over Clinton’s howls of protest. This was their plan, and they stuck to it with the dilligence of a Rhodes’ Scholar. Such discipline! Such restraint!

No one had a plan, but I appreciate the amusing strawman of my description of the history. The Republicans forced deficit reduction by forcing spending cuts. They didn’t get all they wanted (Bill Clinton shut down the government to prevent it, and then blamed it on them), but they prevented spending from growing much more than it would have had the Dems remained in control of the Hill.

Unfortunately, once Bush came into office, these very same congressional Republicans lost any and every sense of self-control, and went on the greatest deficit spending binge in American history, acting like coked-out frat boys in charge of a strip club.

They did, in fact, because Bush himself has no discernable spending discipline, and the Republicans are much less likely to attempt to rein in a president of their own party than that of a Democrat. Again, this is why I would prefer a Democrat president and a Republican Congress, were we not at war.

Unfortunately, once Bush came into office, these very same congressional Republicans lost any and every sense of self-control, and went on the greatest deficit spending binge in American history, acting like coked-out frat boys in charge of a strip club. Such gluttony! Such excess! So this is why the sitting president has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the budget.

Is this your hypothesis, Rand? If so, it’s an … intersesting … hypothesis.

Jubal: In sincere defense of Ed, his X-Rocket is doing good things, from what I’ve heard through the grapevine. And although I’m not sure how much Rocket Racing LLC is *directly* responsible for the X-Prize Cup or the Rocket Racing League, it’s undeniable that Ed was there first, arguing for the creation of *exactly* these kind of competitions. That’s a Very Good Thing, and I honestly respect him for it. I wish he would spend more time with those activities, and less time making enemies on the Internet. And finally, I would be a hypocrite if I did not leap to the defense of someone who is accused of snarfing the refreshment tables at space conferences.

Jeff: I’m afraid that until conservatives stop trying to demonize the very *word* “liberal”, any kind of alliance *is* pretty much DOA. The conservative movement derives its strength from its ideological purity, and will do anything to maintain this purity, even if it is in fact an utter farce. The economic conservatives and the religious fundamentalists, for example, have very little philosophical common ground. But by agreeing to advance and to never question each others’ agendas, they have been able to scrape together a tenuous majority. But they *know* that this unity is tenuous, and therefore treat any *hint* of political or philosophical diversity as a mortal threat to their power. There is a line to be toed, and the slightest deviation from it is impermissible. If they can’t stop themselves from libeling and demonizing people like McCain or Murtha, how can they be expected to parlay with any *actual* liberals?

By being lucky enough to inherit a recovered economy (the recession had ended before the election).

And he completly eliminated deficit spending during his term in office, not “a few years, to many years beyond” it.

But he never described any plan to do so, or he described many plans to do so, with many different timetables. He had no plan (unless it was a secret plan to bring the Republicans into Congress in 1994, in which case he executed it brilliantly).

Secondly, your implication that “liberal” is somehow antithetical to “taxpayer” is deeply offensive. I am a liberal, and I pay an assload of taxes (not because I am wealthy, but because I am self-employed and must therefore pay double). So do all my liberal friends. So please take that rhetoric and shove it. It is untrue un every possible respect, and serves no other purpose than to insult.

Thirdly, and recognizing how deeply off-topic this thread has become, but damnit I’m tipsy tonight and feel like fighting — Reagan argued from the perspective of a *stupid* taxpayer, rather than a *smart* one. That this got him some political traction doesn’t make him right; politicians get traction out of stupid ideas all the time.

Regardless of whatever rhetoric you want to use, it’s simply indisputable that nations, like individuals, MUST EVENTUALLY RECKON WITH THEIR CHECKBOOKS. Given the outrageous taxes that I pay, I would of course *love* to pay less. However I cannot sanction the destruction of my nation in the process. And that is what ongoing deficit spending entails: the eventual destruction of the nation that I love.

There are three, and only three, eventual outcomes to rampant deficit spending:

1.) Deficits created today can be made up with taxes payed tomorrow. A *lot* of taxes payed tomorrow, because now you’ve got interest to pay, too. If this is the sort of country you want to create, move to Sweden.

2.) Deficits created today can be made up with budgets cut tomorrow. A *lot* of budgets, not just your hated entitlements programs (which I’m not so fond of, either). As in: you like having non-toll roads? Water? Police & firemen? A military? Think again. If this the kind of nation you want, then move to some country that is undergoing an IMF structural adjustment. Or maybe Somalia. Not a lot of national budget, there.

3.) Deficits created today can be resolved by defaulting on the debt. Looking at Argentina can only give you a *hint* of what this would entail, because the entire *world* runs on dollars, and an American debt default would lead to a global monetary collapse. If this is the kind of country you want, then you should DEFINITELY move to Somalia.

Those are the three options. Cheap, idiotic, feel-good Reaganesque homilies about “the common man” can have real long-term impacts, and this is how. In order to preserve both the individual *or* the nation, you’ve got to consider the needs of both. You respond to my looking at things “from the government balance sheet” as though thinking these things through is some sort of crime. Truth is that I’m all in favor of reducing taxes for individuals — like myself, like ALL liberals — when doing so doesn’t create persistant deficit spending, thus causing the destruction, one way or another, of the country that I love.

Oops. Pesky Alzheimer’s.

“From the perspective of the (government balance sheet…” — that says a lot.

“Liberals” look at spending solely from the perspective of the government bureaucrat or politician, who wants to spend as many tax dollars as possible on a limitless array of programs.

Reagan say it from the perspective of the *taxpayer*, who has to work for those dollars, which the bureaucrats and politicians take away and spend so freely.

The difference between tax cuts and spending increases may not matter to those who merely spend taxpayer’s dollars, but it matters a *lot* to people who have to earn those dollars.

That’s why Reagan trounced you guys in election after election. “Liberals” might not care how much burden the common taxpayer has to bear, but taxpayers certainly did.