Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: annyokie
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). That growth far exceeds the 11.6 percent growth in the first three years of former President Bush's administration. Indeed, the current president's three-year real increase exceeds Jimmy Carter's term (13.8 percent), Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent). See table for details.
52 posted on 01/31/2004 7:33:26 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Ol' Sparky
>
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.

102 posted on 02/01/2004 7:01:27 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson