You're a joke, right? You are aware that after signing the most massive tax hike in history and losing the House for the rats in 1994, the Republicans dictated "the budget". Clinton was left with little to do but chase young interns and masturbate in the Oval Office sink. I prefer George Bush getting those massive tax CUTS in his first year to anything the toon did.
And if you truly believe that you "don’t see why a Democrat couldn’t be good on the budget", then you must have got your hands on some pretty high-quality LSD. Rats don't do budgets without massive tax hikes as their centerpiece.
FRegards,
LH
(Wait... did you forget a /sarc tag?)
Funny how those same Republicans dictated a different budget to W, then.
All I know is that federal spending under Clinton reached its lowest levels in 50 years. The budget was in its best shape in a very long time. Was it all him? No. But he has to get some credit.
I preferred Clinton’s 18% spending levels to W’s 22% and doubling of the national debt, but that’s just me.
I’m just saying that party affiliation is no guarantee of anything. A Republican can be bad on the budgte, a democrat can be good. It really depends on the person.