I see nothing wrong in his op. Maybe you could enlighten us as to what is wrong.
How about we start with this analysis from The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/deficits
There never was a surplus
Jul 27th 2011, 13:59 by M.S.
..
YESTERDAY the White House published a chart that explains how we got from the Clinton administration projection that the government would pay off its entire debt and then build up $2.3 trillion in savings by 2011, to the $10.4 trillion in debt we actually wound up with. Of that $12.7 trillion shift, the Bush tax cuts account for $3 trillion. James Fallows explains: "As the figures demonstrated, the Bush-era tax cuts, extended last year under Obama, were the biggest single policy source of deficit increase over the past ten years. Therefore you can be for reducing deficits, or you can be for preserving the tax cuts, but you cannot rationally be for both."
{snip}
Then maybe take a look at this link:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16/The Myth of the Clinton Surplus October 31st, 2007
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.
For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
{snip}
Of course there was also the cost resulting from 9/11
I like this link to the NY Times for the graphics:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.htmlOf course Kentuck would probably call the expense of war unnecessary.
Then too one has to realize what happened in 2006 when the Democratix took over. I seem to note an absence of that in Kentuck's post along with the constant talking down of the economy by folk like Chuck U Shumer D NY who may actually have fired the first round in what was to be a bank run on INDY MAC.
http://www.housingwire.com/news/indymac-mini-bank-run-thanks-schumer 
