I’ve pointed out on several occasions that the burden of federal spending fell significantly during the Clinton years. Indeed, if we did nothing other than bring federal spending back down to 18.2 percent of GDP (where it was when Clinton left office), we’d have a budget surplus before the end of the decade (even with all the tax cuts made permanent).
Here’s a debate from a couple of months ago, but the issues haven’t changed. I debate Pat Choate (the 1996 running-mate of Ross Perot) about fiscal policy. I explain that spending is the problem and we could solve that problem by unwinding all the counterproductive spending of the Bush-Obama years.
International Liberty 
[…] have been three periods of spending restraint in my lifetime: 1) the Reagan years, 2) the Clinton years, and 3) the Tea Party […]
[…] have been three periods of spending restraint in my lifetime: 1) the Reagan years, 2) the Clinton years, and 3) the Tea Party […]
[…] have been three periods of spending restraint in my lifetime: 1) the Reagan years, 2) the Clinton years, and 3) the Tea Party […]
[…] there have been three periods of spending restraint in my lifetime: 1) the Reagan years, 2) the Clinton years, and 3) the Tea Party […]
[…] can praise Democrats who do good things and praise Republicans who do good things. And also criticize members of either party (sadly, […]
[…] it echoes arguments that I’ve made about the progress that was achieved during the Clinton […]
[…] it echoes arguments that I’ve made about the progress that was achieved during the Clinton […]
[…] Or maybe we could somehow hope that politicians would simply be responsible, like lawmakers in Canada and New Zealand in the 1990s. Or we could reincarnate Reagan. Or even bring back Clinton. […]
[…] I was delighted to have a chance to explain that Bush and Nixon were big-government interventionists (and also to point out that Clinton was surprisingly good on the issue of government spending). […]
[…] I also believe in giving praise when it’s warranted. That’s why I’ve written nice things about Bill Clinton and also why I praised House Republicans for supporting entitlement […]
[…] I was delighted to have a chance to explain that Bush and Nixon were big-government interventionists (and also to point out that Clinton was surprisingly good on the issue of government spending). […]
[…] I was delighted to have a chance to explain that Bush and Nixon were big-government interventionists (and also to point out that Clinton was surprisingly good on the issue of government spending). […]
[…] 3. The federal budget would still consume a greater share of the economy’s output than it did when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] 3. The federal budget would still consume a greater share of the economy’s output than it did when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] 3. The federal budget would still consume a greater share of the economy’s output than it did when Bill Clinton left office. […]
[…] track record on spending was especially good. Indeed, I even admitted on TV that I would accept Clinton-era tax rates if we could unravel all […]