>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.

I think we can safely say that he had nothing to do with the downturn, since it began in March 2001 when he was out of office. But I disagree with you on Clinton not having anything to do with the boom of the 1990s. I have seen several articles by economists who credit Clinton's determination in fighting the budget deficit with the boom.

>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.

I think Bush II's tax cuts got a lot of play in Congress, considering that both the House and Senate passed them. How much more play can you get than that?