>>I have seen published reports that the recession started around the 4th quarter of 2000 and the previous economic growth started in 1992 wich lasted about 8 years. I care not to go research and point to web sites as that was not really my point. I did however point to the OMB figures which do address my point.
>
>The recession actually begain in March of 2001:
>
>http://www.nber.com/cycles/recessions.html
>
>This document does support your assertion that the economy was improvingin 1991 under Bush 41.

Yes it does in the first paragraph. It says we have had record-long economic growth that began in 1991 with an 8 month blip [recession in 2001] and growth again beginning at the end of 2001. Clinton did not take office until January 1993. Clinton also had ZIP to do with the technological boom of the 90s that fueled much of this growth. Just as he had ZIP to do with its bust that helped fuel the downturn.

>>My point was that it is a myth that Clinton reduced the Federal deficit. I do agree that he did slow its growth. It is irrelevant whether or not he submitted a balanced budget to Congress. Those are always DOA regardless of who the Prez is. That is why I NEVER give ANY Prez much credit [if any] for economic growth or recessions. Congress has way too much control over the budget, the Fed Reserve over interest rates, etc., all of which influence economies more than any Prez can. About the only leverage the Prez has is the VETO which they use too little of.
>
>While I agree that no budget submitted by a president makes it through Congress unscathed, it is certainly a guideline. When a president makes fiscal discipline a priority in the budget he submits to Congress, it carries as much weight as a president who proposes large tax cuts.

I dare say Congress does not even look at the President's budget he submits. The Prez staff are largely responsible for pushing the Reps and Sens for specific spending bills and funding amounts. Congress already has their framework at least a year in advance of the upcoming FY and used that then works in any Administration pet projects if staff lobbying is successful and if the Prez has done a good enough sales job to motivate the voters.

How much play do you think the Bush II tax cuts have gotten in Congress? Not much because they were only temporary and attempts to make them permanent are not taking root very well.