Clinton Era Growth. Taxes or Spending?

Democrats often proffer the following logic:

The economy during the Clinton administration was strong.
Marginal tax rates were generally higher during the Clinton administration than they are now.
Ergo, raising tax rates would be a positive economic move.

There is another part of the story that receives almost no attention (because, of course, it  doesn't support the liberal narrative). Government spending was also a declining as a burden on the economy through the Clinton years.

Now, which do you think had the bigger positive impact on economic growth? Higher taxes? Or restrained government spending? Is it possible that it is the unrestrained Federal spending of the last six years that keeps us from achieving growth rates we experienced in the 90s?