Clinton inherited a world in which there was no longer a Soviet Union, nor a Cold War. Reagan inherited a world in which the Soviet Union existed and was expanding its influence, e.g. invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet/Marxism in Africa and South America.

Reagan decided to rebuild the United States Military, a military that was in decline. The rebuilding and updating of equipment and missile cost the country large sums of money. However, the idea of Peace through Strength became a reality. The arms race that Reagan joined with the Soviet Union, brought them to the tables, negotiations led to the reduction of nuclear weapons by both sides. Ultimately the Soviet Union collapsed, gone were the days of needing a military that could stand up to a conventional attack by the Soviet Union. Clinton was albe to reduce spending by reducing the size of the military. Under Clinton the military reduced manpower, eliminated naval vessels and army and marine divisions. This resulted in lower operating costs and decreased spending on the military.

The question that must be answered is this; Would Clinton have been able to accomplish this if the Soviet Union and the Cold War still existed??? The answer is a resounding NO. Thus from Reagan actions and work, Clinton was able to not only balance the budget but create a surplus. They both go hand in hand. If not for Reagan's success, there would not have been a Clinton success either.

dmk