Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
49
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the socio-economic reforms of US President W.J. Clinton for 1992 to 2000 presidency.
Based on various financial and economic sources, an analysis of the socio-economic transformations with previous US
presidents is given.
KEYWORDS
S
ocial security, economic problems, economic growth, higher education, “buried”, technological progress.
INTRODUCTION
From 1992 to 2000 in the history of the United States
entered as a
period of “Clintonomics” personified as an
era of reforms aimed at social problems accumulated
from previous administrations.
By taking the oath of office for the presidency, W. J.
Clinton in his State of the Union address to Congress
on February 17, 1993,
finally “buried” “Reaganomics”
and advanced the concept of the “third way”, guided
not by ideological dogmas, but by the requirements of
life . W. J. Clinton rejected the philosophy that
“government can do nothing to solve the country’s
hardest problems”[
1].
As president, W. J. Clinton took on a whole range of
economic problems that required him to tackle
something out of the ordinary.
The driving force behind the economic growth of the
1980s was a radical renewal of technology in
connection with the transition to a resource-saving
type of production. The race for the achievements of
scientific and technological progress was spurred on
by competition from Japan, the leading Western
European countries (primarily Germany), as well as the
“Asian tigers”.
Research Article
SOCIO-ECONOMIC REFORMS AS A PRIORITY FOR MODERN US
DEVELOPMENT
Submission Date:
July 20, 2023,
Accepted Date:
July 25, 2023,
Published Date:
July 30, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijhps/Volume03Issue07-10
Abdurasul A. Rozakov
Phd, Associate Professor, Of The
“International
School Of Finance,Texnology And Sciences
”
LLC, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijhps
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
50
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Among the main priorities of the social policy of W. J.
Clinton, several directions were included, which
became the cornerstone of the socio-economic policy
of the new Democratic administration.
The economic tasks included the development and
implementation of
“a program for the conversion of
defense industries, including financial assistance to
local small and medium-sized firms engaged in military
production, as well as workers and employees who will
lose their jobs as a result of the conversion; providing
every American, under certain conditions, with the
opportunity
to
receive
a
higher
education;
improvement of national health care. The states that
make the most proactive efforts in these areas stand
the chance of more federal funding”[2].
In addition, another of the priorities of the economic
program of W. J. Clinton was “increasing investment in
improving the living conditions of individual areas
(communities), in particular, increasing investment in
the modernization of public utilities and housing for
the poor. W. J. Clinton intended to create a nationwide
network of small banks, the main purpose of which
would be to provide small loans to entrepreneurs and
homeowners in declining cities and their areas. It was
planned to increase the number of city police, the
creation of business zones in stagnant areas, as well as
credit incentives for cities experiencing special
financial difficulties [3].
THE MAIN FINDINGS AND RESULTS
W. J. Clinton’s reforms in the field of secondary
education need to be especially emphasized. As
governor of Arkansas, he reformed the education
system on a statewide scale, which had a noticeable
impact on improving the quality of knowledge and
student achievement. “These transformations served
as a model for other states in the reform of the
education system”[4].
The significance of W. J. Clinton’s reforms in the field
of education was determined by the fact that he
proposed to invest in human capital at all stages of life.
Federal education programs, according to his idea,
were to help parents prepare their children for school.
It was also supposed to establish a nationwide system
of examinations in basic subjects, in particular in
mathematics and natural sciences. Youth - provide the
opportunity to receive vocational training, or pay for
higher education, by obtaining a bank loan or work for
two years after graduation from college in an
institution or company that has a special social need.
For example, “to work as a teacher in schools in poor
urban areas, so one of the slogans of the program in
the field of education was -
“We guarantee you the
opportunity to get an education, but by receiving such
help, you must repay the country with something” [5].
The need to establish national principles in domestic
policy in the United States was first discussed around
the beginning of the 1960s, more precisely, with the
advent of Democrat John F. Kennedy to the post of
head of state with his New Frontier program.
Subsequently, this line was continued in the “Great
Society” program by L. Johnson, which assumed “the
deployment of large programs in the field of social
insurance, health care, public assistance, as well as
education, training and retraining of the workforce,
which American budget statistics combine into a single
category” expenditures f
or human resources [6].
It is known that in the post-war period the problem of
the federal budget deficit first arose acutely in the 70s:
“1969 as a fiscal year was the last in modern US fiscal
history when the federal budget was reduced with a
small surp
lus” 6].
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
51
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
So, in the 70s, the deficit became chronic. The main
reason for this was rooted in the deployment of a wide
range of social programs in the mid-
60s, the “budget
pressure” of which the States first felt only 10
-15 years
later. Thus, in fiscal year 1965, transfer payments
accounted for 28% of all federal spending, and in fiscal
year 1970 they increased to 33.1%. By fiscal year 1975
they were up 46.3%. In “1981, the last year of the
administration of Democratic President John Carter,
these payments reached a record level for that period
-
47.9% of total federal spending, taken as 100%” [6].
Since the mid-
1960s, a model of “wave
-
like”
restructuring of budget priorities has gradually formed
in the United States. The Democrats, who preferred
social programs, as well as programs in the field of
environmental protection, when they came to power,
“launched” a cycle of social reforms that required
appropriate financial and budgetary support.
In this sense, they had certain “collisions” with the
Republicans, who invariably opposed the expansion of
public social services and zealously defended the
interests of the military-industrial complex. Reductions
in military spending on the principle of linear mutual
substitution of military and social programs could only
be achieved to a very limited extent. “The emerging
budget deficit served as a kind of price to pay for the
stability of the US bipartisan political system, which
was “written off” as an increase in social spending and
the non-reduction of military appropr
iations” [7].
With the advent of the Republicans to power, the
situation changed diametrically: the Democrats “lay
down with bones”, defending social and other
programs related to them. However, they did not resist
the desire of the Republicans to implement the US
military build-up programs, the funds for which were
scooped from budget deficits that were growing
absolutely and relatively. This situation was directly
related to the existence of a social contract, according
to which budgetary spending was closely linked to the
mass political base of these two political parties: social
programs - with the electorate of the Democratic
Party, military programs - with the electorate of the
Republicans.
This fact has been studied in sufficient detail and is
widely recognized by American political scientists. In
particular, as S. Lewift and J. Snyder emphasize in their
study, “the vast majority of American experts agree
that the control of the Democratic Party over both the
House of Representatives and the Senate for most of
the post-war period allowed the Democrats to hold a
number
of
federal
programs
that
have
disproportionately benefited their constituents” [8].
According to their calculations, it turned out that a 10%
increase in the number of votes cast for the Democrats
(that is, from 50% to 60%) in the 2nd half of the 80s
“turned into an annual increase in federal spending,
mainly for social needs, from 17 up to $84 per capita in
various constituencies” [9].
It should be emphasized that the fact of the narrow
economic efficiency of the socio-economic programs
of the federal government, implemented over the past
30 years, has not been proven. If in the mid-1960s social
programs were deployed mainly as a factor in the fight
against poverty in American society, then 30 years later
their results, taken according to this indicator, looked
different. So, in 1960, according to official American
statistics, in the United States there were about 40
million people living below the established threshold,
then in 1992 - about 37 million period decreased by
about one third - from 22.2 to 14.5%. However, it should
be borne in mind that in 1966, that is, at the very height
of the deployment of the “war on poverty” programs,
this figure was 14.7%”[10].
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
52
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
The coming to power in January 1993 of the
administration of W. J. Clinton was the result of a well-
studied cyclical pattern of changing liberal and
conservative waves in American politics, equal to
approximately 30-
33 years. The previous “liberal hour”,
as you know, struck in 1960 and was associated with
the coming to power of the Kennedy-Johnson
administration. The main “package” of social reforms
of this administration saw the light in the mid-60s as
part of the “Great Society” strategy. And about 33
years earlier, the F. Roosevelt administration, which
came to the US state leadership, proclaimed the New
Deal and adopted a series of laws on social security,
laid the foundations for the implementation of the
modern social program of the US Democratic
administration.
The administrat
ion of W. J. Clinton “began its activities
in approximately the same socio-economic conditions
as the Kennedy-Johnson administration, that is, during
the period when the American economy entered the
phase of cyclical recovery and relatively high rates of
e
conomic growth” [11].
The administration of W. J. Clinton followed the path
of social reform of the Democratic Party. One of the
main priorities of the internal political strategy, she
proclaimed the reform of the healthcare system. The
Democrats’ main re
ckoning was that the 37 million
Americans without public health insurance at the time
represented a massive reserve of the Democratic
Party’s mass political base. The implementation of this
reform, of course, over time would expand the ranks
of “Democrats,
as it happened earlier as a result of the
implementation of the social reform programs of
Roosevelt and Kennedy-
Johnson” [12].
In 1993-1994, the administration of W. J. Clinton
launched its health insurance program. And the failure
in the autumn of 1994 to pass the proposed legislation
was not to be regarded as fatal. American society, as in
the 1960s, needed some time to prepare for the new
realities of another long-
term “liberal era” in domestic
politics. It is likely that if the reform of American health
care had been launched during the second term of the
Democrats in office, this circumstance would suit the
administration of W. J. Clinton even more. However, at
that time no one could predict or foresee the second
re-election of W. J. Clinton, because it depended on the
successful fulfillment of promises in his first term in the
White House. But despite the opposition of the
Republican Congress, in 1992 - 1996 health insurance
programs accounted for 42.9% of the total social
spending budget, amounting to $1,155.7 billion, and in
the second term of the Democrats, it amounted to
$1,356.4 billion [13].
The implementation of the socio-economic policy of
Bill Clinton most of all depended on the “stumbling
block” in the US economy
- the budget deficit, the
impact of which was great. In the last 35 years before
the administration of W. J. Clinton, the United States
had only 2 surpluses (in fiscal years 1960 and 1969),
while in other years it was in deficit.
From the second half of the 1970s, the budget deficit,
as noted above, becomes chronic and becomes an
integral part of the federal budget, and relatively
independent of the nature of the economic
conjuncture and the phases of the economic cycle. And
despite all the efforts of each administration, declaring
“the fight against the budget deficit as their number
one task”, it nevertheless continued to grow rapidly:
from 53.2 billion dollars in 1975 to 290.4 billion in 1992”
[14].
The budget deficit is closely related to the growth of
budget expenditures. It also depends on the general
economic situation, stability and economic growth. On
this issue, the statement of the famous American
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
53
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
economist M. Linden is appropriate. Thus, in his
scientific work on the activities of the administration of
W. J. Clinton, he,
in particular, emphasizes: “The
interaction of budget expenditures and revenues,
combined with the existing budget deficit, can have a
neutral or negative impact on the overall state of the
economy, the deficit in itself is not a problem, but only
serves as a barometer of what is happening in the
economy” [15].
In the early 1980s, the United States entered a period
of economic crisis: the standard of living of the
population dropped sharply, its economic activity fell,
the number of unemployed increased, and inflation
assumed dangerous proportions. “The budget deficit
grew rapidly in the early years of the Reagan
administration: from $79 billion in 1981 to $208 billion in
1983” [16]
The government tried to use scarce funding to solve a
number of problems. Thus, in the period from 1981 to
1986, tax reforms were carried out, which resulted in a
significant reduction in income and corporate taxes,
the provision of various benefits and subsidies to the
private sector. These efforts were directed “to
revitalize private business and develop its investment
activities. The Reagan administration understood that
this could lead to an increase in budget deficits, but it
was in them that they saw salvation from problems in
the economy”[17].
The crisis situation was further aggravated by
inflationary pressure on the economy. To stop the
rapid rise in prices, it was necessary to take radical anti-
inflationary measures. Contrary to the prevailing
opinion that deficits lead to inflation, the threefold
increase in the absolute size of the budget deficit in the
first half of the 1980s was simultaneously accompanied
by a decrease in the inflation rate. Consequently, the
deficit is not involutionary in itself, but its inflationary
potential largely depends on the methods of financing
the budget deficit. However, many US economists
believe that massive chronic deficits are driving up
federal debt and interest payments. “Since 1981, the
growth of public debt outstripped the pace of
economic development, and in 1979-1994 it increased
from 483.9 billion to 4.6 trillion Dollars”[18].
The increase in interest rates in the mid-1980s, caused
by huge budget deficits, on the one hand, reduced the
amount of domestic investment in the US economy, on
the other. It facilitated a significant influx of foreign
capital, thereby stimulating the economic recovery.
Deficient financing in the short term had a certain
positive impact on economic growth, the activation of
private business, and the reduction of inflationary
processes. However, in the long run, the existence of
budget deficits became a brake on the development of
the economy. A chain of three interconnected
categories
—
growing public debt, deficits, and interest
paid on debt
—
has led to a reduction in investment
activity, crowding private borrowers out of the loan
capital markets, and turning the United States into the
world's largest debtor [19].
In December 1985, Congress, recognizing the need to
reduce the deficit, passed the Deficit Control Act,
which was a serious attempt to solve this problem. Its
essence was to completely eliminate the deficit by
gradually reducing it by the 1991 financial year.
According to the law, the annual size of the deficit was
clearly defined, and if the expected target figure was
exceeded, the mechanism of “automatic” cuts in
budget expenditures would immediately come into
effect, which had nothing to do with economic growth
rates. But as it became known, by 1991 this law did not
work.
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
54
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
In the 1992 election speeches, all presidential
candidates expressed their views on the idea of a
balanced budget. W. J. Clinton, after winning the
election, in 1993 noted that “the budget deficit and its
negative impact on the economy turned out to be
greater than he could have imagined during the
election campaign” [20]. Therefore, he proposed a
comprehensive plan aimed at reducing it. The
administration considered that if measures were not
taken to stabilize the deficit, then in 10 years it could
exceed $600 billion [21]. According to the president,
“the budget deficit cannot be dealt with if we do not
take into account the reduction in the level of public
investment. Indeed, if in the 60s investments
amounted to 4.5% of GNP, by 1992 they had dropped to
1.5%”
[22]. For comparison, he cites the following
statistics: “In Japan in 1990, the level of public
investment was 6.1% of GNP, in the UK - 4.0% of GNP, in
France - 3.7% of GNP, in Germany -
3.4% of GNP” [23].
Consequently, it was necessary to increase the volume
of investments and at the same time reduce the
budget deficit, which seemed to be a rather difficult
task.
The entire socio-economic policy of the administration
of W.J. Clinton can be expressed in the formula
–
“investment”. His administration's eco
nomic strategy
for long-term issues was as follows:
1) Pay special attention to solving long-term problems;
2) More active use of fiscal measured policy (as
opposed to monetary policy);
3) The use of federal leverage to achieve a number of
economic and social objectives;
4) Change in the ratio of income and expenditure in
certain parts of the state budget, in order to reduce the
budget deficit;
5) The use of federal power as the driving force for
reforming the American economy.
This was supposed to be achieved through the
following means:
“Development of state infrastructure; R&D support;
technology
improvement;
creating
favorable
conditions for small businesses;
- strengthening the role of the state in solving social
problems - health care; public assistance systems;
education and training”.
In Congress, the economic plan of W. J. Clinton was
controversially
perceived.
Some
congressmen
opposed his economic program because they did not
see much need for it. They believed that progress in the
recovery of the American economy could take place on
its own, without any significant government
intervention. They argued their position by the fact
that labor productivity has recently risen significantly
and the United States is still the most productive
country, ahead of Japan and Germany, and, therefore,
the problem of the budget deficit is greatly
exaggerated.
At the same time, most legislators believed that the US
economy is still far from a state of prosperity and is
characterized by a number of serious problems, the
solution of which requires significant changes in
economic policy.
In the early 1990s, the United States experienced
stagnation, which is explained by the following
reasons:
- firstly, in the 1980s there was an increase in military
spending, a const
ruction “boom”, a massive influx of
foreign capital and tax cuts that held back economic
growth;
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
55
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
- Secondly, the fundamentals for a long-term recovery
have been undermined, investment savings levels have
declined, US competitiveness in the world market has
fallen, and educational levels have deteriorated.
Therefore, the administration of W. J. Clinton puts
forward a rather impressive plan, consisting of three
comprehensive programs:
1) a program of short-term stimulation of the American
economy, to which it was planned to allocate 30 billion
dollars. The main task was to create incentives for the
growth of the number of jobs through the
development of the education system, vocational
training and retraining, through investment in
highways, the protection of the environment and
natural resources;
2) a long-
term investment program for which “$140
billion has been allocated for four years since
1993”[24]. It was supposed to provide benefits and
incentives for private investors, as well as targeted
investment in the most important industries for
American society. “In order to reduce the budget
deficit, increase capital investment, ensure economic
growth and create new jobs, it is necessary to move
from an economic system in which tax collections were
mainly eaten up, to one in which the focus will be on
investment, education , vocational training”;
3) Budget deficit reduction program as a necessary
condition for long-term economic growth.
President W. J. Clinton’s plan was a serious attempt to
bring the growing budget deficit under control. He
intended to “reduce the deficit from 1993 to 1997 by
$500 billion, and in the future - by $140 billion and
reduce the percentage deviation of the budget deficit
to the volume of GNP from 5.4% - in 1993 to 2.7% - by
1997” [25]
.
The Clinton administration cited several reasons why
more deficit reduction was needed than in previous
years: cutting domestic savings, attracting capital from
Japan, Germany, and other countries that would help
finance budget deficits in the 1980s when the US were
the largest importer in the world, in subsequent years
this process has significantly decreased.
The constant growth of the budget deficit entailed “an
increase in public debt, which was covered by the
constant issuance of government loans. In turn, this led
to an increase in the share of expenses going to pay
interest on loans. To compensate, it was necessary to
increase the annual interest payments on the debt by
10-15 billion dollars[26].
By the time of the W. J. Clinton administration, “
the
federal government was paying $200 billion in interest
to holders of the public debt, which was 14% of the total
budget expenditures and equaled 15% of every taxable
dollar.” As a result, most government borrowing was
in one way or another related to servicing previously
accumulated debts. “Government debt in the 80s grew
at a faster pace than GNP. In 988, the size of the federal
debt amounted to 26.5% of GNP, and in 1993 -
51.6%”
[27].
By 1993 in the USA, by the arrival of K.D. Clinton to
power, there was a situation when it turned out to be
more attractive for investors to invest free funds in
financial assets than in real production. As a result, the
overall level of domestic investment and savings,
which in the mid-1970s was 7.9% of national income, fell
to 4% in the mid-1980s. This happened mainly due to an
increase in debt obligations. The administrations of
W.J. Clinton managed to reduce the public debt from
64.1% to 57.3% of GDP in 1992-2000 [28].
In 1993, “every $7 spent by Americans (14.3% of GDP)
went to health care, at a time when no other
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
56
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
developed country spends more than 10% of GDP. Half
of the expected increase in the federal budget deficit
from 1994 to 1998 is due to increased Medicare and
Medicard payments [28].
This example shows that the existence of a budget
deficit has a decisive impact on the economy and
affects the incomes of the population. The budget
deficit begins to affect the country's economy in
combination with other factors - the budgetary policy
of the administration and the economic condition of
the country. With their unfavorable combination (for
example, the crisis situation in the country), even a
small increase in the budget deficit can lead to negative
consequences in many areas of economic life.
CONCLUSION
The administration of W. J. Clinton made health care
reform one of the main priorities of its domestic
political strategy. The federal states that were most
active in this area were in a position to increase federal
funding. In addition, another of the priorities of the
economic program of W. J. Clinton was an increase in
investment in improving the living conditions of certain
areas (communities), in particular, an increase in
investment in the modernization of public utilities,
housing for the poor. In the field of financial
revitalization, W. J. Clinton initiated a program to
create a nationwide network of small banks, the main
purpose of which was to provide small loans to
entrepreneurs and homeowners in declining cities and
their areas. The number of city police was increased,
business zones were created in stagnant areas, as well
as credit incentives for cities experiencing special
financial difficulties. The implementation of these
priority programs affected the socio-economic and
financial situation not only in the national plan, but also
in individual states.
Drawing some conclusions, it can be emphasized with
confidence that the extraordinary approaches to
solving
the
socio-economic
reforms
of
the
administration of W. J. Clinton, which covered almost
all aspects of American society, brought the United
States into one of the leaders among developed
countries in the field of social transformations, the
results of which inertially continued to bear fruit and
subsequent US presidents.
REFERENCES
1.
Клинтон Б. Моя жизнь. М., С
-155
2.
American
Presidency
Project.
//
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu;
//
http://www.americanpresidency.org.
3.
Бамстед Р.А. Президент Билл Клинтон //
США: экономика, политика, идеология. –
Москва, 1993, №1.
-
С 3
-11.
4.
Супян В.Б. Образование –
ключевой фактор
социально
-
экономического развития США в
XXI веке. // http:// www.budgetrf.ru.
5.
Супян В.Б. Образование –
ключевой фактор
социально
-
экономического развития США в
XXI веке. // http:// w
ww.budgetrf.ru..
6.
Budget of the United States Government
Historical Tables. FY 1995. - Wash, 1994.-P.84 -
86.
7.
Чикалова И. Р.«Американки и внутренняя
политика США в последней трети ХХ века». //
http://www.genderstudies.info/sbornik/vozmo
j/17.htm.
8.
Levift Sand, Snyder J. Political Parties and the
Distribution of Federal Outlays.
–
American
Journal of Political Science Nov.1995. - P.961.
9.
Levift Sand Snyder J. Political Parties and the
Distribution of Federal Outlays.
–
American
Journal of Political Science Nov.1995. - P.966.
Volume 03 Issue 07-2023
57
International Journal Of History And Political Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2222)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
07
P
AGES
:
49-57
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
713
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
10.
Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994. -
P.475.
11.
Васильев В.С. Распадающийся социальный
конфликт Америки: бюджетное измерение //
США: экономика, политика, идеология –
Москва, 1996, № 9. –
С 55.
12.
I did.-
Р.56
13.
Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables. Budget of the
US Government. OMB, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, 2013. Table 9.9.
Pp. 209
–
210.
14.
Survey of Current Business. 1994, №4,.
- P.48.
15.
Linden M. Not So Fast, Newt. The Real Heroes
of the 1998 Budget Surplus: Clinton and His
Economy. // http://americanproject.org. .
16.
Linden M. Not So Fast, Newt. The Real Heroes
of the 1998 Budget Surplus: Clinton and His
Economy. // http://americanproject.org.
17.
I did.// http://americanproject.org.
18.
Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables. Budget of the
US Government. OMB, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, 2013.
19.
Бабич
С.Н.
Экономическое
значение
налоговых реформ в США в конце XX
-
начале
XXI века : автореферат дис. ... кандидата
экономических наук : 08.00.14.
-
Москва, 2010
// http://dlib.rsl.ru
20.
President Clinton Pnoposals fon Public
Investment and Deficit Reduction. - Wash.,
1993. -P.10.
21.
США в борьбе за мировое могущество. Часть
25
//
https://www.becmology.ru/blog/politic/usa_p
olitic25.htm
22.
President Clinton Pnoposals fon Public
Investment and Deficit Reduction. - Wash.,
1993. -P.15.
23.
I did. -P.16
24.
President Clinton Pnoposals fon Public
Investment and Deficit Reduction. - Wash. ,
1993. -P.22.
25.
President Clinton Pnoposals fon Public
Investment and Deficit Reduction. - Wash. ,
1993. - P.21
26.
.
//
https://www.becmology.ru/blog/politic/usa_p
olitic25.htm
27.
Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables. Budget of the
US Government. OMB, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, 2013
28.
President Clinton Proposals for Public
Investment and Deficit Reduction. - Wash.
1993. .-P.24
