Yes, he did.
>>the change was do entirely to economic growth from the tech boom couple with spending restraint.
Yes, there was solid growth in GDP and yes there was spending restraint. But as jpn noted, Clinton and the Democrats enacted substantial tax increases on wealthy households in the 103rd Congress AND passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that placed caps on spending, substantially limiting its growth. That was the trade-off — Democrats accepted large cuts in future Medicare spending to gain the tax increases.
Yer not offering anything to indicate the relative impact of those factors. Certainly the word "entirely" is completely unjustified in this context.
CBO provides estimates of how various policy, economic, and technical factors account for differences between projected and actual revenues and outlays, but those involve only one-year forecasts.
>>Meanwhile, Clinton proposed 200bn dollar deficits through 2000.
In the early years in his presidency, I would guess that's correct. But what was OMB projecting in the later years? A deficit of $112B in 1998, and surpluses of $10B in 1999, $114B in 2000, and $185B in 2001.
>>Clinton vetoed the Republican congresses spending bills. They refused to pass somethign he liked, shutdown happend, and then we ended up with a balanced budget agreement in 1997
That involved only $160B in spending cuts over five years, and about half of that was subsequently rescinded in 1999 and 2000. It had not much more than a marginal impact on the budget, accounting for about fourteen percent of the shift from a deficit to a surplus. The surpluses 1998-2001 totalled $560B. It's also important to note that the deficit fell by $181B 1994-97.
>>So, the matter wasnt decided.
It was largely decided.
>>The Republicans directly affected it.
Not much.
You may wonder, but liberals know why — a combination of the effects of globalisation, automation, a higher return on education, … AND massive tax cut giveaways to fat cats.
>>what should we do?
Seek to mitigate the impact of the first three of those factors by making smart investments in education, infrastructure, and R &D, … AND raise taxes on wealthy households.
Well, that's some of it. jpn's chart included state and local gubmint spending, and was adjusted for population.