In dollars it has, but that is more a function of a growing economy than of ballooning programs. A more realistic way to look at government spending is as a percent of GDP, and there things are not quite so depressing.
Under Reagan's watch, non defense related federal spending dropped from 14.7% of the GDP to 12.4%.
By the end of Clinton's term that number was 13.3%.
And with the drunken sailor we have in charge now, that number has swollen to 16.3% for FY2004, the highest it has ever been.
No money for homeland security, huh?
Leave out the homeland security money, and Bush's spending has been going DOWN.
Why is that more realistic than looking at real numbers? False premise in your argument. If 9/11 had had an even more destructive effect on 2001's GDP, than it did, government discretionary spending would have churned right along at the same levels despite the distorted ratio.
Does it occur to you that, as a result of Klintoon's military cuts, not to mention his failures in having the cojones to protect this nation's security from devastating risk, when faced with the 911 attacks and our agenda had to be immediately re-directed, that our military has almost had to be re-built because it had been laid so bare? What price tag do you place on protecting this country? What price tag do you place on your and your family's personal freedom? Does it even occur to you that your very life and your safety are not guaranteed?? That it has to be wisely overseen and then action taken to protect your butt from terrorism? .. and that takes billions of dollars in resources?
You small-minded, short-sighted people really get me. Make sure you vote for Shrillery Dean .. they'll protect your butt .. oh yeah. Back to DU with ya. FREEDOM ISN'T FREE!