Replies

The comparison chart you use for discretionary spending is misleading. By definition, discretionary spending means spending that is done at the power or right of one's own judgment. The starting point for discretionary spending every fiscal year is -- zero. There is no mandatory aspect to it. Thus the level of spending in the previous year is irrelevant and the percentage change in discretionary spending from the previous year is also irrelevant.

What is relevant; Discretionary spending in Reagan's first budget -- FY 1982 -- was 10.1% of GDP. Non-DOD discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP in Reagan's first year was 4.4%. Discretionary spending in Bush's first budget -- FY2002 -- was 7.1% of GDP. Non-DOD discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP for Bush's first year was 3.7% and that doesn't even include increased Homeland Defense type spending which is higher under Bush than it was under Reagan.

Fortunately, the rhetorical games didn't prevent you from understanding the point of the chart any more than they will prevent understanding on anyone else's part..

The chart is decepetive for two reasons;

First, the increases in 2002 discrestionary spending over 2001 discretionary spending are due to Homeland expeditures.

Second, Reagan in his sole judgement spent more on discretionary non-DOD than Bush. That's what discretionary spending means.

You identify as "rhetorical games" that which you don't understand.

First, the increases in 2002 discrestionary spending over 2001 discretionary spending are due to Homeland expeditures.

Really? And here I thought nonmilitary domestic spending meant foreign aid to Egypt....

Second, Reagan in his sole judgement spent more on discretionary non-DOD than Bush. That's what discretionary spending means.

This is false on its face. Both parts. Reagan did not spend more on discretionary non-DOD than Bush, much less do so in his sole judgment. Moreover, discretionary spending does not mean Reagan spending more than Bush in his sole judgment regardless of the fact that Reagan didn't do so anyhow.

Took me a bit to find the figures. Total federal spending under Bush's current budget policy is about 20.2% of GDP versus a 22.3% average under Reagan. Of that, non-military discretionary spending accounted for 17.1% of Reagan's budgets and accounts for at least 19.4% of Bush's budgets. That means that Reagan's non-military discretionary spending as a percent of GDP checked in at about 3.81% whereas Bush's checks in at 3.88%.

Moreover, none of that was at Reagan's sole discretion since every spending bill passed and signed during his term had to be introduced by a Democratic House.