Did Bill Clinton balance the United States budget or not?

Question

I’ve been doing some studying on Bill Clinton’s time in office as President. It appears that Bill is very popular for the way he handled the budget deficit for the United States. However, I’ve read a couple of articles that states that Bill Clinton was not the reason for our debt decrease, but the GOP/Congress was. In fact, supposedly, Bill Clinton opposed the budget at first, but when the budget actually worked out in our nation’s favor, he took the credit. Can anyone offer me any insight on this? Please educate me. Thanks.

Answer 1

It was a joint effort, although there was some conflict between the two sides, including a couple of government shutdowns. Clinton proposed to balance the budget all right, but his initial proposals delayed the hard cuts and the actual balancing until he would have been out of office, in 2002. Newt and the Republican controlled Congress forced his hand and called for more immediate cuts. The result, after some contentious negotiations was a balanced budget for the last couple of years of his tenure. There were annual surpluses for, I think, three years, but none of them were large enough to actually reduce the national debt, only pay off a larger chunk of the annual interest. One large issue was that many of the cuts were to infrastructure related items, so things like highways, bridges, dams and such suffered some neglect as a result.

Answer 2

Balanced Budget Clinton

Answer 3

Number one thing that worked for Bill Clinton; GHW Bush made the last payment for the S & L bailout. So Clinton had 260 billion dollars to play with on his first budget.
Second thing; Clinton refinanced the debt with short term (lower interest, higher risk) bonds. It was a paper work trick that made the deficit smaller by billons but could blow up if interest rates went up. No rational president has done that. Of course Clinton financed things until 2001 so he won't take any blame if it blew up.
Third; Clinton said that the deficit might be able to be brought under control in 10 years, then 7 years. He said that in 1994, check the video. The GOP took over the congress in 1995 and the budget was balanced on paper in two years. Congress balanced the budget and not Clinton. Similar to when the GOP reformed welfare, Clinton vetoed the bill twice and announced that he would do it again. His advisors told him just before the dem convention in 1996 that the people wanted the reform passed. Clinton signed and publicly said that he would "fix it" next year. He never revisited the issue and it worked. He took credit for the reform after 1998.

Answer 4

You already know the facts but you don't want to see them. You want it all to be Clinton. Sorry, it was the Republican controlled congress. Congress has the power of the purse not the President. The President writes a budget but congress must actually approve the funds and they may add or subtract from the amounts that the President has sent. Witness the S-chips bill that the President just vetoed. He wanted to increase spending on this bill by $5,000,000,000 and congress wanted to increase spending by $35,000,000,000. The congress does not have enough votes to override the veto so the bill is stalled. In most cases this would be a time for compromise but the current congress has refused to work with the President on a compromise. This is our system of checks and balances. No one part of government can function without the other parts.

Answer 5

Yes he did. I agree that President's always claim credit for the good stuff and shirk the blame for the bad stuff. I think alot of it is luck and certainly, the President can do nothing without Congressional cooperation.

I personally think that Clinton was a much better President than Bush, but he was lucky enough to have presided over a robust economy while Bush has presided over an economic decline. To ameliorate the effects of the decline, he has pulled out the national credit card to inject money into the economy and the pockets of the rich. Deficit financing works in the short-term, and who knows what Clinton would have done in the face of similar circumstances.

It does amaze me how Republicans (like Reagan and Bush) who claim to be fiscally responsible can make blatent use this Roosevelt/Keynes trick which boosts the economy in the short-run (but mortgages future generations), while making the public believe that Democrats are big spenders.

Answer 6

Those who indicate that Clinton opposed the budget at first but then took credit when it worked out in our nation's favor are correct. He NEVER balanced the budget, nor did he ever attempt to. Old Slick Willie was just in the right place at the right time. President Reagan spent the '80's (the so-called Decade of Greed, when contributions to charitable organizations reached an all-time high) revitalizing the economy, and Alan Greenspan continued to steer the government (and, more specifically, the Federal Reserve) in the right direction, so all Billy-Boy had to do was sit back and say "Hey, ain't I great?"

Answer 7

No President has ever balanced the budget. That is the role of the Congress since they control the taxing and spending functions of government. The President proposes. The Congress disposes.
But, since we have been carefully conditioned to the concept of a Federal Wizard King in residence at the White House, it's easy to understand why most Americans no longer have the faintest idea of how government works.

Answer 8

I strongly believe that congress role in budget is minimal and highly influenced by president. As an example you can see how Bush vetoes twice broadly supported child's insurance bill. These are out right vetoes , but how many times can a president influence a bill by simply threatening to veto it.

That said I give 90% of the credit to Clinton ... just as a comparison GOP Congress in past 7 years (ok 6) increase dour national debt by 3.3. trillion! What all of a sudden they stopped to be conervative?


"In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers,[35] while cutting taxes for 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses.[36] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints"

Answer 9

Yes and it was the stated basis for Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
Not that you'll ever get these half-wits to admit that in a million years.

The reason they won't? The "verboten" topic - tax increases on the wealthy greatly decreased debts and deficits, just like now.

Answer 10

in a way. when bush got the presidency in 2000, there appeared that there was going to be a surplus that year, between what the u.s was going to spend and estimated tax revenues (it is always estimated because they don't wait until the money is in hand). bush was on pace for even more surplus until 9/11.