Replies

If you don't count Homeland Security and DOD then discretionary spending in 2002 as a percentage of GDP was about 3.3% for Bush. Clinton's was about 3.2%.

Well, according to a Washington Post article:

"Tad DeHaven, a budget researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute, published his version of the numbers a few days later. He found a 6.8 percent increase in the same categories (spending not related to the military or homeland security ) in 2002, an 8.3 percent increase last fiscal year and a 6.3 percent increase this year -- more than double Bush's 2004 number".

While "federal budget authority climbed 11 percent in 2002 and 15.3 percent in 2003".

However, the GDP was flat in recessionary 2002 thanks to Clinton.

What policies did Klinton enact that caused the recession?

If you don't count Homeland Security and DOD then discretionary spending in 2002 as a percentage of GDP was about 3.3% for Bush. Clinton's was about 3.2%. Well, according to a Washington Post article:

The articles I've seen from Cato about the discretionary 2002 budget include Homeland defense as nondefense, thus scewing of the numbers. You would have to show me differently with a link.

From the CBO, Link 2002 discretionary spending was 7.1% of GDP. Half of that discretionary spending was DOD. That takes non-DOD spending down to about 3.6% of GDP. Add to that the $19 billion for discretionary Homeland defense and you are down to about 3.3% of GDP. Compare that to Reagans discretionary first year budget of 1982 which was about 3.9% of GDP.

I have not seen the final numbers yet for 2003 but I believe they will come in a little above 3.3%. That, would not include the real increase in 2003, the $40 billion allocated for Homeland defense.