The Clinton surplus resulted primarily by massive cuts in military and intellligence services spending. The result was a weakened military and intelligence services which lost capacity to collect, analyze and react on several fronts.

Yes, we had a budget surplus, but that was solely due to a 'risk management' policy which later proved spendthrift. The military could not afford to train as effectively, equipment maintenance was reduced and acquisition of replacement systems was delayed beyond logical affordability. Several intelligence programs were scaled back or eliminated altogether, and once shut down are almost impossible to restart within the same decade, if at all.

The same budget decisions as made during the Clinton administration happen every 30 years of so, and always with the same effect - short term bonanza with a long-term pricetag. It's like the old FRAM oil finter commercial: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later [and later is always MUCH MORE expensive]!

The Clinton era decisions were not made maliciously, and probably seemed like a reasonable action at the time to several economics and social scientists.

Defense and intelligence services are like insurance. When you don't have a claim to file, it seems like money down the toilet. However, when the storm comes you just never have enough of it - and by then it's way more expensive, if you can get it at all!

So, here we are again, as after World War One, World War Two, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf One. There will be the cry to slice the military and the intelligence services (because we just can't cut 'entitlement' programs...) for the sake of the deficit. It probably will happen, resulting in a reduced defense capacity (China and Russia and others are not buddies, and they are patient!), a reduced intelligence capacity to forecast and react, and an overall reduction in Homeland security - but we will be solvent without having to reduce the domestic giveaway programs. . .