Capital gains taxes rose from $40 billion in 1995 to $121 billion in 2000, driven by the boom market. This may have had at least something to do with the surplus.

There was a capital gains tax cut in 1997. I'm sure there is no connection.

Other than that, what exactly did Clinton do other than largely ignore the economy? Actually, come to think of it, that's usually the best thing for economic growth. I'm sure a newly Republican congress had nothing to do with it either. I've seen a lot of news lately on which presidents presided over economic growth. Anybody done the same thing with control of the House and Senate?

Anyway, what's the point? The economy generated 353,000 jobs in March, 324,000 in April, and 208,000 in May, and the "economy sucks" song never changed. Response here, when it wasn't a big yawn, was that they weren't the "right" jobs you see, and the Left turned to find other statistics to back them up that the economy still sucked.

All the rising indicators were ignored, and only the stalled indicators were considered important. Record GNP growth? Who cares?

If the economy added a million jobs a month, the whole talk would be about inflation, and not being able to keep up with rising prices. No matter what the rising statistic, there's a pin to prick the balloon. The economy is fueled by debt. The economy is possessed by evil spirits. Something.

So, since the statistics have absolutely nothing to do with your judgments, what's the point?