AHC: Keep the US Govt's Early 2000s Federal Budget Surplus running for as long as possible

How could we change history to prolong the Clinton/early Bush era surplus? I'm guessing Gore wins in 2000, enacts fewer tax cuts, and proposes a different Medicare Part D which allows the Federal government to negotiate drug pricing with pharmaceutical companies. Perhaps he would have the political clout, as a democrat, to attempt bi-partisan social security reform, as pre-Lewinsky Clinton had hoped to do.

We've gotta prevent the war on terror too... perhaps a relatively low-key airplane bombing is conducted by a domestic terror group in America sometime in early 2001, with about 10-15 people killed. The casualties lead to calls for greater airport security, which prevents 9/11, and subsequent wars.

With all the best case scenarios, how long could the US govt. stay in the financial black?
 
No 9/11, cap defence spending, reform social services, rein the banks and Wall Street, reform tax and close loopholes.
 
You guys are primarily talking about reducing the expense side of the equation.

The whole other side is keeping GDP growth going. Globalization and trade has been a success, including lifting a heck of a lot of people in the third world out of poverty. Yes, this in spite of corporations often being badly behaving.

Maybe a way of having trade be more genuinely win-win and not such a loss of middle-class jobs here in the U.S.

Maybe even a net gain.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
The surplus was not going to last, mostly because both parties thought they had made a mistake by having one to start with. Other than strict fiscal conservatives, the talk in the GOP was about "returning the money to the people" through either tax cuts or wage subsidies (Bush in particular was adamant about this). And the Democrats saw the surplus as something to invest in social programs.

There is also the fact that the late 90s boom was not going to last, and you can't expect that GDP growth to continue in an advanced economy.
 
Top