OK, but that cuts both ways. Clinton inherited a deficit problem in 1992; he promised a plan to fix it. He produced one - a ten-year plan, with the vast majority of the cuts in years 9 and 10, that is, after Clinton left office, even if he were in office for two terms!

The Republicans took over Congress in 1994, and immediately put an end to that game. Democrats say that the budget was balanced under Clinton, and it was, but it took a Republican Congress to force him to do it. (This also worked pretty well at starving Clinton's priorities, as you say.)

So neither side looks very good. Republicans spend like crazy when in power (though Trump is far worse than the average Republican administration), and get budget-cutting religion when out of the White House. Democrats occasionally talk about the budget, but don't do anything when in power.

The one historical example we have (post Andrew Jackson) of a fiscally responsible administration was a Democratic president hamstrung by a Republican Congress.

> a ten-year plan, with the vast majority of the cuts in years 9 and 10

Technically, Clinton and a Republican congress solved the deficit during his terms (1993-2001), albeit in large part via post-Cold War dividends from BRAC et al.

Wikipedia has a nice graphic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/...

The longer term plan would have been to solve the US debt, which was obviously larger. And tbh, will only realistically be solved via running persistent inflation.

Honestly, Congress should pass a law requiring presidents to only publicly communicate budget projections up to the end of their term.

No current term-savings, no announcements.