Replies

Section 3.1 is a broader summary and that is what the figure "Human Resources" was taken from in the data and the chart in question.

Since everybody thought I would learn more looking it up myself here is what OMB has listed under the "Human Resources" superfunction:

Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, Health, Income security, Social security (off-budget,) Veterans benefits and services,

Going back, a ways, I asked what Human Resources included, but was never given an answer. I did get a diatribe (see post 154) but no direct answer.

So, while I haven't dug in any deeper (and the devil is always in the details ain't it) it looks like the numbers used for Human Resources include many areas and functions (and subfunctions) in the budget.

Another aspect missing from that plot is a notation of how much increase in mandatory spending items (within the Human Resources superfunction) was already built into the programs.

Of course, I don't want anyone to have to actually think about this too much. And me, being a moron according to some, probably couldn't figure out any more detail.

It sure was a perty picture though...

It seems you are trying to make some case that can cover up the fact Bush has increased spending far more than anybody expected, including the liberal Democrats.

The Categories you refer to are the same comparative categories an accounting that goes back all the way to JFK and before.

What Bush has in HR so did the previous presidents. Some of the spending is discretionary. The point is it is apples to apples comparison here.

Ronald Reagan, as the data showed, was able to cut HR spending by about 5%, and that was with Rostenkowski and the Democrats clawing at him to be a liberal with spending. But Reagan held firm and was able to cut HR and increase spending for the military.

Sad to say that the trends in this data look very ominous.