I don't agree, Jim. Yes, the bubble under Clinton inflated receipts and gave us predictions, if you remember, of endless budget surpluses for the foreseeable future. But then we had the wars and the tax cuts. The budget deficit in 2008 was .458 trillion. That's around the level where "deficits don't matter." Then the financial disaster struck and the economy went in the toilet and in 2009 the deficit was 1.4 trillion. Is it a surprise that so severe a recession led to such a large deficit? Without the recession, and without the two wars and without the deficit-increasing tax cuts, would we have had a deficit? Probably. Would it have been in the "deficits don't matter" range? Well, only if a Rep. had been in office, but you know what I mean.
The problem is the recession, and not just because recessions mean fewer bucks coming in in taxes, but also because recessions provoke bigger expenditures by governments. I know that not everyone is a Keynesian, so maybe those expenditures wouldn't happen under a Rep. administration. But then we'd be in a depression, not a recession. (That's my Keynesian self speaking
[tinhaton]The recession was a deliberate thing, concocted by a party that wants to make the government disappear as much as possible.[/tinhaton]