I suggest you check the CBO statistics since those are the figures that matter in this discussion. In regards to your question, "please explain to me why the U.S. Treasury Dept. doesn't show that Clinton surplus?" Because Clinton's surplus was a budget projection made by the CBO for congress. Those are the statistics you should be looking at since it is congress that makes the budget and decides where the money should be spent, not the Treasury. To help alleviate your confusion.....I suggest you check out the bureau of economic analysis to see economic growth during the Bush years after those tax cuts. Then go to the U.S. Treasury Dept and see the revenue generation after the tax cuts yet for some reason you buy the rhetoric of Bush officials on this issue. I am sure you bought all the rhetoric from the Bush Administration on other issues just like you did on this issue. by the way please explain to me why the U.S. Treasury Dept. doesn't show that Clinton surplus?
Treasury serves a purpose parallel to that of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the estimation of revenues and spending for the executive branch.
The Joint Committee on Taxation does the estimation of revenues for Congress, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does the estimation of spending for Congress.
"Before the Bush tax cuts were enacted the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected gradually rising federal budget surpluses—from 2.7% of GDP in 2001 to 5.3% of GDP by 2011. Within a few years, CBO was projecting budget deficits. The Bush tax cuts, with a $1 trillion 10-year price tag, contributed to this shift from budget surpluses to deficits"....read.
Tax cuts = less tax revenue = budget deficit
Any economic gains made by the Bush's tax cuts was lost in the $3 trillion debt they created.
Have you considered that your reality is based more on misinformation and wishful thinking than fact based analysis? Think about that.Too many people are out of touch with reality when it comes to taxes as they ignore that tax cuts mean more spendable income. why are liberals against that, think about it?