Replies

>
However, Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy notes: "The current president easily eclipses his father on federal spending growth." De Rugy and Cato researcher Tad DeHaven calculate that in real, or inflation-adjusted terms, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise about 20.8 percent in George W. Bush's first three years in office (through FY2004).
>

You see? The wrong yardstick again. Growth. There are corporations right now announcing spectacular earnings growth. Why? Not because the current number is huge. Because the previous number was low.

Clinton gutted the military. Quietly. Defense as a % of GDP was a number you can look up at the CBO and see that it was gutted. The big GDP numbers of the dotcom years kept the % of GDP low for domestic discretionary too. Inflation adjustments continued for salaries in all categories, maintaining that growth rate and then GDP growth collapsed just as Bush was taking office, so his numbers as a % of GDP increased vs Clinton's.

But This Is The Wrong Yardstick. What matters is the absolute number as a % of GDP. Not how they adjust vs Clinton's gutted military numbers and in a poor economy. Bush's numbers in this regard are SUPERIOR to Ronald Reagan's in the same year of their presidency. Think about that. They are SUPERIOR.

What matters is the absolute number as a % of GDP.

I ran through this on another thread, allow me to post it again here. Absolute number as a % of GDP is an incomplete metric. A president who inherited discretionary spending as [say] 10% of GDP and whittled it down to 6%, has a superior record to one who inherited [say] 3% and allowed it to climb to 5%.

Bush's numbers in this regard are SUPERIOR to Ronald Reagan's in the same year of their presidency. Think about that. They are SUPERIOR.

Simply not true.

How about the yardstick measured in dollar amounts:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579

The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades.

And, don't forget, Reagan was dealing with Democratic congress and budget requests contained less spending than Congress in seven of his eight years in office.

It wasn't Reagan that brought us the Medicare prescription drug bill, which is one of the single biggest expansions of government since the Great Society programs.