President Obama unveiled his fiscal year 2012 budget today, and there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that there’s no major initiative such as the so-called stimulus scheme or the government-run healthcare proposal. The bad news, though, is that government is far too big and Obama’s budget does nothing to address this problem.
But perhaps the folks on Capitol Hill will be more responsible and actually try to save America from becoming a big-government, European-style welfare state. The solution may not be easy, but it is simple. Lawmakers merely need to restrain the growth of government spending so that it grows slower than the private economy.
Actual spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross domestic product.
Fortunately, we have two role models from recent history that show it is possible to control the federal budget. This video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to demonstrate the fiscal policy achievements of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
Some people will want to argue about who gets credit for the good fiscal policy of the 1980s and 1990s.
Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush.
Indeed, a major theme in this new video is that the past 10 years have been a fiscal disaster. Both Bush and Obama have dramatically boosted the burden of government spending – largely because of rapid increases in domestic spending.
This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government.
Another problem is that many people in Washington are fixated on deficits and debt, but that’s akin to focusing on symptoms and ignoring the underlying disease. To elaborate, this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much debt.
Last but not least, this video reviews the theory and evidence for the “Rahn Curve,” which is the notion that there is a growth-maximizing level of government outlays. The bad news is that government already is far too big in the United States. This is undermining prosperity and reducing competitiveness.
[…] spending (such as Harding and Coolidge) and also lauded presidents who restrained spending (such as Reagan and […]
[…] like we got spending restraint during the Reagan […]
[…] like we got spending restraint during the Reagan […]
[…] like we got spending restraint during the Reagan […]
[…] like we got spending restraint during the Reagan […]
[…] shown in this chart, the overall burden of domestic spending fell by 2.5 percentage points of economic output during his […]
[…] of the defense budget. Even when looking at just domestic spending, Republicans (other than Reagan) have a worse track […]
[…] of the defense budget. Even when looking at just domestic spending, Republicans (other than Reagan) have a worse track […]
[…] of the defense budget. Even when looking at just domestic spending, Republicans (other than Reagan) have a worse track […]
[…] because of the defense budget. Even when looking at just domestic spending, Republicans (other than Reagan) have a worse track […]
[…] Simply stated, lawmakers need to copy the fiscal restraint of the Reagan years and Clinton years. […]
[…] Simply stated, lawmakers need to copy the fiscal restraint of the Reagan years and Clinton years. […]
[…] Simply stated, lawmakers need to copy the fiscal restraint of the Reagan years and Clinton years. […]
[…] history is any guide, the answer is yes. Here’s another video, from more than 10 years ago, that shows the fiscal discipline the nation enjoyed under both Reagan […]
[…] history is any guide, the answer is yes. Here’s another video, from more than 10 years ago, that shows the fiscal discipline the nation enjoyed under both Reagan […]
[…] view is that libertarians can be strong allies with limited-government conservatives such […]
[…] the Reagan economic agenda was also about spending restraint, deregulation, trade liberalization (he got the ball rolling on NAFTA and the WTO), and other […]
[…] view is that libertarians can be strong allies with limited-government conservatives such […]
[…] view is that libertarians can be strong allies with limited-government conservatives such as […]
[…] we find is that Reagan was remarkably effective in fighting big government. Indeed, what separates Reagan from every other Republican in recent […]
[…] we find is that Reagan was remarkably effective in fighting big government. Indeed, what separates Reagan from every other Republican in recent […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] bottom line is that I wish we could return to the spending restraint that America enjoyed during the final two decades of the 20th […]
[…] than 10 years ago, I narrated this videoshowing how the United States benefited from spending restraint under both Ronald Reagan and Bill […]
[…] than 10 years ago, I narrated this video showing how the United States benefited from spending restraint under both Ronald Reagan and Bill […]
[…] Maybe it’s been hibernating ever since Reagan left office (like Pepperidge Farm, I’m old enough to remember those wonderful years). […]
[…] P.P.S. Jimmy Carter didn’t have a good record on fiscal issues, but he was more frugal than almost every Republican president over the past six decades (with Reagan being the obvious exception). […]
[…] P.P.S. Jimmy Carter didn’t have a good record on fiscal issues, but he was more frugal than almost every Republican president over the past six decades (with Reagan being the obvious exception). […]
[…] certainly what happened under Reagan, and he then was reelected with a 49-state […]
[…] we did get a bit of Reagan-style spending restraint under Bill Clinton (though one can certainly argue that the post-1994 GOP Congress deserves some or all of the […]
[…] Maybe it’s been hibernating ever since Reagan left office (like Pepperidge Farm, I’m old enough to remember those wonderful years). […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] we did get a bit of Reagan-style spending restraint under Bill Clinton (though one can certainly argue that the post-1994 GOP Congress deserves some or all of the […]
[…] we did get a bit of Reagan-style spending restraint under Bill Clinton (though one can certainly argue that the post-1994 GOP Congress deserves some or all of the […]
[…] Maybe it’s been hibernating ever since Reagan left office (like Pepperidge Farm, I’m old enough to remember those wonderful years). […]
[…] Maybe it’s been hibernating ever since Reagan left office (like Pepperidge Farm, I’m old enough to remember those wonderful years). […]
[…] Maybe it’s been hibernating ever since Reagan left office (like Pepperidge Farm, I’m old enough to remember those wonderful years). […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] (i.e., a falling burden of spending) occurred during the Reagan and Clinton years. Since I did a video on exactly this issue, I concur that we got good results during their […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] (i.e., a falling burden of spending) occurred during the Reagan and Clinton years. Since I did a video on exactly this issue, I concur that we got good results during their […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] the Reagan economic agenda was also about spending restraint, deregulation, trade liberalization (he got the ball rolling on NAFTA and the WTO), and other […]
[…] the Reagan economic agenda was also about spending restraint, deregulation, trade liberalization (he got the ball rolling on NAFTA and the WTO), and other […]
[…] He dramatically expanded the burden of government spending in the 1980s (the opposite of what Reagan and Thatcher were doing that decade), thus setting the stage for Greece’s eventual fiscal […]
[…] periods of spending restraint, including a five-year spending freeze under Obama, as well as some fiscal discipline under both Reagan and […]
[…] we got much better fiscal results from the Clinton Administration than we did from Bush or Obama. If you go back farther in history, […]
[…] policies will cause lots of squealing in Washington. But we saw during the Reagan and Carter years, as well as more recently, that spending discipline is […]
[…] numbers and revealed that Republican presidents generally allow more spending than Democrats. The only exception to this rule is Ronald […]
[…] Republicans can beat Bill Clinton’s record, […]
[…] Republicans can beat Bill Clinton’s record, […]
[…] gave extra credit for his tax cuts, the spending restraint, and the taming of […]
[…] some interesting secondary stories. You’ll notice that the negative upward trend was reversed during the Reagan years and we continued to make progress during the Clinton […]
[…] And the biggest reason for the increase was better fiscal policy. […]
[…] made big positive changes in policy. He tamed inflation. He slashed tax rates. He substantially reduced the burden of domestic spending. He curtailed red […]
[…] made big positive changes in policy. He tamed inflation. He slashed tax rates. He substantially reduced the burden of domestic spending. He curtailed red […]
[…] a huge jump in the “top marginal tax rate” score. All of which makes sense because the burden of government spending (measured as a share of GDP) fell slightly during the Reagan years while the top tax rate dropped dramatically from 70 percent t0 28 […]
[…] Given what he did to expand Medicaid dependency in Ohio, I’m not sure I’m happy about Kasich’s strong showing. On the other hand, he played a key role in the spending restraint of the 1990s. […]
[…] when the burden of government is reduced, like we saw under Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the economy enjoys relative […]
[…] when the burden of government is reduced, like we saw under Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the economy enjoys relative […]
[…] show that it’s more important to look at policy rather than partisan labels. For instance, the fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are relatively similar and are in distinct contrast to the more profligate fiscal policies of George W. Bush and Barack […]
[…] that it’s more important to look at policy rather than partisan labels. For instance, the fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are relatively similar and are in distinct contrast to the more profligate fiscal policies of George W. Bush and Barack […]
[…] spending restraint of the Clinton years occurred in large part because of people inside the beltway and outside the beltway who spent years […]
[…] means a President like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton rather than George Bush or Barack […]
[…] universally good. Kasich, after all, was Chairman of the House Budget Committee in the 1990s when genuine spending restraint led to a balanced budget. And Paul Ryan’s otherwise good ideas on tax reform have been marred […]
[…] comparison, you can look at Reagan and Clinton for examples of Presidents who increased economic freedom during their […]
[…] comparison, you can look at Reagan and Clinton for examples of Presidents who increased economic freedom during their […]
[…] politicians to sustain good policy on a long-run basis. The gains of good policy (such as what was achieved in the 1990s) can quickly be erased by a spending binge (such as what happened during the Bush […]
[…] ** The good news is that spending grew very slowly beginning in 2010. The bad news is that spending rose so fast last decade (particularly in 2009) that the burden of federal spending is still much larger than it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] ** The good news is that spending grew very slowly beginning in 2010. The bad news is that spending rose so fast last decade (particularly in 2009) that the burden of federal spending is still much larger than it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] Though it’s not great news because the burden of federal spending is still significantly higher than it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] Though it’s not great news because the burden of federal spending is still significantly higher than it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] post also does not include the video about fiscal restraint during the Reagan and Clinton years, or the video looking at how nations such as New Zealand and Canada were able to restrain spending. […]
[…] teach us about the benefits of good fiscal policy (think Hong Kong, Estonia, Canada, and the U.S. under Reagan and Clinton) and the costs of bad fiscal policy (France, Cyprus, Greece, and the U.S. under Bush and […]
[…] We also discussed some historical examples of good policy, such as fiscal restraint in Canada and New Zealand, as well as a shrinking burden of government spending during the Clinton years. […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] convergence process slowed down after the welfare state began to expand in the 1960s. And after the pro-growth reforms of the Reagan years and Clinton years, the United States actually has opened up a bigger […]
[…] more information on Reagan and Clinton, this video has the […]
[…] Originally Posted by Babba you offer nothing but a chart showing a rise in income but offer nothing backing up your assertion for the reasons for it. Because you say so is not ever going to convince me. RealClearMarkets – The Clinton Economy: Good Luck, Good Policy, or Both? It's the Reagan Economy, Stupid | Cato Institute Explaining the Clinton Economic Boom Why Did America?s Economy Boom When Reagan and Clinton Reduced the Burden of Spending? – Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary – Page full Obama fundamentally misunderstands the Reagan-Clinton economic boom | AEIdeas Clintonomics: How Bill Clinton Reengineered the Reagan Revolution: Jack Godwin Ph.D.: 9780814413982: Amazon.com: Books To Fix the Budget, Bring Back Reagan?or Even Clinton | International Liberty […]
[…] a good option since it means a return of Clinton-era tax rates (but unfortunately not a return to Clinton-era levels of spending and regulation), but at least there would also be “sequestration,” which is budget-wonk term […]
[…] Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has noted, “I’m all in favor of bringing federal government spending back down to about 18 percent of GDP, which is where it was when Bill Clinton left office.” […]
[…] territory, and I would have preferred this joke to target Jimmy Carter because Clinton actually turned out to be a pretty good President. Or, to be more precise, we got reasonably good policy during the Clinton […]
[…] And I’m all in favor of bringing federal government spending back down to about 18 percent of GDP, which is where it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far above the 18.2 percent of GDP when Clinton left office, which should be the minimum target for […]
[…] And I’m all in favor of bringing federal government spending back down to about 18 percent of GDP, which is where it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] mid-1990s, so he deserves some of the credit for restraining federal spending during that period, a very successful policy that led to better economic performance and budget […]
[…] spot in my heart for Bill Clinton. In part, that’s because economic freedom increased and the burden of government spending was reduced during his time in […]
[…] spot in my heart for Bill Clinton. In part, that’s because economic freedom increased and the burden of government spending was reduced during his time in […]
[…] it worked for Bill Clinton, it could also work for Barack […]
[…] it worked for Bill Clinton, it could also work for Barack […]
[…] Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton had their famous shutdown battle. The Democrats were anxious to cut a deal to get the gravy train rolling again, and Republicans used that leverage to achieve a significant policy victory. […]
[…] tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his […]
[…] a good option since it means a return of Clinton-era tax rates (but unfortunately not a return to Clinton-era levels of spending and regulation), but at least there would also be “sequestration,” which is budget-wonk term […]
[…] course, that the Tea Party deserves credit for recent fiscal progress, much as they can claim that Clinton’s relatively good numbers were the result of the GOP sweep in the 1994 […]
[…] a good option since it means a return of Clinton-era tax rates (but unfortunately not a return to Clinton-era levels of spending and regulation), but at least there would also be “sequestration,” which is budget-wonk term […]
[…] chart shows what’s happened to federal spending over the twenty years. We’ve gone from decent policy under Clinton to profligacy last decade and now a period of fiscal […]
[…] chart shows what’s happened to federal spending over the twenty years. We’ve gone from decent policy under Clinton to profligacy last decade and now a period of fiscal […]
[…] the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years, I’m not sure he was successful in his […]
[…] history and wisely doesn’t get trapped in partisanship. He correctly notes that we got good results under both Reagan and Clinton when the burden of government was […]
[…] Bill Clinton, in retrospect, was a much better choice than Bush 41. And he paved the way for the GOP landslide in […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t […]
[…] We also discussed some historical examples of good policy, such as fiscal restraint in Canada and New Zealand, as well as a shrinking burden of government spending during the Clinton years. […]
[…] We also discussed some historical examples of good policy, such as fiscal restraint in Canada and New Zealand, as well as a shrinking burden of government spending during the Clinton years. […]
[…] grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far above the 18.2 percent of GDP when Clinton left office, which should be the minimum target for […]
[…] to satisfy this Golden Rule. It’s much harder to convince politicians to be frugal. Yes, it happened during the Reagan and Clinton years, and there also have been multi-year periods of spending discipline in nations such as Estonia, New […]
[…] by the way. The fiscal success of the late 1990s was a result of genuine spending restraint, as explained in this video. The lower taxes were simply a bit of icing on the […]
[…] personal finances? I very much doubt that any of them deserve to be called libertarian (though the burden of government shrunk under Bill Clinton, so maybe we can consider him an unintentional […]
[…] And all Paul Ryan is proposing is that we emulate the policy of the Clinton years. […]
[…] Let’s be clear, though, that this is not a libertarian budget. Federal spending will still be far too high. Indeed, the budget will consume a larger share of the economy than it did when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] more information on Reagan and Clinton, this video has the […]
[…] more information on Reagan and Clinton, this video has the […]
[…] though I have remarked on many occasions that the burden of government was reduced during the Clinton years, that doesn’t mean Bill Clinton was in favor of smaller government. And it definitely doesn’t […]
[…] and they explain that the last period of strong growth took place during the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress substantially reduced the burden of federal […]
[…] it’s not just that the Gipper had good rhetoric. He also did a decent job of restraining spending and he significantly lowered marginal tax […]
[…] it’s not just that the Gipper had good rhetoric. He also did a decent job of restraining spending and he significantly lowered marginal tax […]
[…] I also point out the similarities between what Paul Ryan is proposing today with what was achieved in the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. […]
[…] and they explain that the last period of strong growth took place during the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress substantially reduced the burden of federal […]
[…] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton had their famous shutdown battle. The Democrats were anxious to cut a deal to get the gravy train rolling again, and Republicans used that leverage to achieve a significant policy victory. […]
[…] Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton had their famous shutdown battle. The Democrats were anxious to cut a deal to get the gravy train rolling again, and Republicans used that leverage to achieve a significant policy victory. […]
[…] Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 1995 when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton had their famous shutdown battle. The Democrats were anxious to cut a deal to get the gravy train rolling again, and Republicans used that leverage to achieve a significant policy victory. […]
[…] also highlights the relatively good performance of the Clinton years. As I’ve done before, I announce that we’d be much better off with the Clinton tax rates – […]
[…] tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his […]
[…] we definitely know he doesn’t want to go back to Bill Clinton spending levels, so he wants the bad part of the 1990s but not the good […]
[…] tax rates in his first year, but he put together a very strong record in subsequent years. He was particularly good about restraining the burden of government spending and overall economic freedom expanded during his […]
[…] a good option since it means a return of Clinton-era tax rates (but unfortunately not a return to Clinton-era levels of spending and regulation), but at least there would also be “sequestration,” which is budget-wonk term […]
It is important to remember cap gains got lowered from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1996.
[…] P.S. You may have noticed that the White House used 20 percent of GDP as a benchmark in its chart, apparently because we should strive for the fiscal policy we had in Bill Clinton’s second term. I might be willing to take them up on that offer, so long as they’re also willing to accept Bill Clinton’s spending levels. […]
[…] a good option since it means a return of Clinton-era tax rates (but unfortunately not a return to Clinton-era levels of spending and regulation), but at least there would also be “sequestration,” which is budget-wonk […]
[…] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last […]
[…] Bill Clinton, in retrospect, was a much better choice than Bush 41. And he paved the way for the GOP landslide in […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows more slowly than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton. […]
[…] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. […]
[…] Which makes me miss Bill Clinton, who was frugal by comparison. Or Ronald Reagan, who actually did the right things for the right […]
[…] legislatures play a role in how well (or poorly) a state does in the report card – much as Bill Clinton’s reasonably good performance presumably was impacted by the GOP Congress. But Chris also looks at policies proposed by […]
[…] grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far about the 18.2 percent of GDP when Clinton left office, which should be the minimum target for […]
[…] though I have remarked on many occasions that the burden of government was reduced during the Clinton years, that doesn’t mean Bill Clinton was in favor of smaller government. And it definitely doesn’t […]
[…] though I have remarked on many occasions that the burden of government was reduced during the Clinton years, that doesn’t mean Bill Clinton was in favor of smaller government. And it definitely […]
[…] also point out the similarities between what Paul Ryan is proposing today with what was achieved in the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] also highlights the relatively good performance of the Clinton years. As I’ve done before, I announce that we’d be much better off with the Clinton tax […]
[…] America’s 42nd President actually did a pretty good job. Or, to be more accurate, we got good results during his tenure, particularly when looking at the burden of government spending. […]
[…] show the benefits of moving policy in the other direction. During the Reagan years, for instance, redistribution programs were constrained and the poverty rate began to fall. And during the Clinton years, welfare reform and other […]
[…] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. […]
[…] Which makes me miss Bill Clinton, who was frugal by comparison. Or Ronald Reagan, who actually did the right things for the right […]
[…] The various interest groups that infest Washington would complain about this degree of spending discipline, but Carter and Fichtner make a good point when they say that this simply means the same size government – as a share of GDP – that we had when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] Which makes me miss Bill Clinton, who was frugal by comparison. Or Ronald Reagan, who actually did the right things for the right […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. […]
[…] What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s. […]
[…] I’ve done a video highlighting the good fiscal record of both Reagan and Clinton, this is music to my […]
[…] This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows more slowly than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton. […]
[…] at the charts, it’s also rather obvious that party labels don’t mean much. Bill Clinton presided during a period of spending restraint, while every Republican other than Reagan has a dismal track […]
[…] This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows slower than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton. […]
[…] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last […]
[…] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last […]
[…] president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last […]
[…] The various interest groups that infest Washington would complain about this degree of spending discipline, but Carter and Fichtner make a good point when they say that this simply means the same size government – as a share of GDP – that we had when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] The various interest groups that infest Washington would complain about this degree of spending discipline, but Carter and Fichtner make a good point when they say that this simply means the same size government – as a share of GDP – that we had when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] I’ve said lots of nice things about Bill Clinton, noting that economic freedom increased during his tenure, in part because the burden of federal spending declined to 18.2 percent of GDP. […]
[…] the budget), but its harmful impact was more than offset by pro-growth policies – such as a reduction in the burden of federal spending, trade liberalization, welfare reform, and […]
[…] the budget), but its harmful impact was more than offset by pro-growth policies – such as a reduction in the burden of federal spending, trade liberalization, welfare reform, and […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding […]
[…] yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic […]
[…] 1. For all the whining and complaining from the pro-spending lobbies, the RSC budget is hardly draconian. Federal spending, measured as a share of GDP, would only drop to where it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] 1. For all the whining and complaining from the pro-spending lobbies, the RSC budget is hardly draconian. Federal spending, measured as a share of GDP, would only drop to where it was when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] restraint, as shown in this video featuring Canada, Slovakia, New Zealand, and Ireland. And this video shows how the United States made progress during both the Reagan years and the Clinton […]
[…] post also does not include the video about fiscal restraint during the Reagan and Clinton years, or the video looking at how nations such as New Zealand and Canada were able to restrain spending. […]
[…] the United States has enjoyed periods of semi-impressive fiscal discipline, most notably during the Reagan and Clinton years. Unfortunately, the modest progress achieved […]
[…] He argues that spending has been cut back, but that’s factually wrong – and a strange argument since Reich was in the cabinet of the last President who actually did reduce the burden of federal spending. […]
[…] the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years, I’m not sure he was successful in his […]
[…] the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years, I’m not sure he was successful in his […]
[…] pointed out on several occasions that the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years. Indeed, if we did […]
[…] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. […]
[…] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. […]
[…] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. […]
[…] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. […]
[…] That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years. […]
[…] I’ve already explained that Bush was a statist rather than a conservative, and you can find additional commentary from me here, here, here, and here. […]
[…] we can save ourselves. A previous video showed how both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved positive fiscal changes by li…, with particular emphasis on reductions in the burden of domestic spending. This new video from the […]
[…] haven’t gotten over my man-crush on the Gipper, I figured it would be interesting to look at Reagan’s fiscal record, particularly to see whether he was successful in restraining the growth of domestic […]
[…] we can save ourselves. A previous video showed how both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved positive fiscal changes by li…, with particular emphasis on reductions in the burden of domestic spending. This new video from the […]
[…] we can save ourselves. A previous video showed how both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved positive fiscal changes by li…, with particular emphasis on reductions in the burden of domestic spending. This new video from the […]
[…] haven’t gotten over my man-crush on the Gipper, I figured it would be interesting to look at Reagan’s fiscal record, particularly to see whether he was successful in restraining the growth of domestic […]
Dan: I have to disagree with you on this one. Clinton didn’t do jack! The Republican controlled Congress did this. No potus can create a surplus or deficit, only Congress can do this. No potus “inherits” a budget or surplus. Congress “inherits” it. Potus can submit budget proposals, but ultimately, Congress signs the check.
http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/there-was-no-clinton-surplus/
http://thedauntlessconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/the-bill-clinton-lie/
Let’s not forget ALL of Clinton’s legacy:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260
While the President is feeding us his line of garbage as to cutting spending, it came to my attention yesterday that the FED is considering a QE3 package adding to the 1.2 trillion dollars of worthless money they’ve already printed hasn’t done what they though it would. All of the cuts in the world are not going to offset the hyper inflation and the costs that come with printing worthless money. M1 has grown 15.2% in less than 3 months and all of that is unbacked paper!
Don’t buy stuff?