Replies

According to recent estimates by the Heritage Institute, the increase in discretionary spending between the Bush administration over the Clinton administration is going to exceed the increase in non-discretionary spending. This is going to be the first time that happened since Lyndon B. Johnson was president.

Actually Bush's first discretionary budget -- year 2001 -- went DOWN relative to GNP.

Instead of listening to what the Heritage Institute says, why don't you go find the facts yourself?

Heritage is the #1 think tank in the US. They spend a huge amount of money doing research and studying and analyzing and then making recommendations regarding public policy. There is no better source than heritage for these types of facts. They are also known as being a very conservative think tank. As you question them in the way you have in order to mindlessly defend Bush you are a good example of the reason why 'Republican Cheerleader' and 'Bush-bot' are terms that describe a real group of citizens in america.

Perhaps this 'fact' you read that Bush' first budget represented a decline for government as a percent of GDP was not a fact at all, but a projection by the Republicans who were relying on very optimistic growth projections that simply did not pan out. I believe this to be the case and I believe that Bush' first budget was an increase for federal guv as a share of gdp. Republicans can lie and con people as good as Enron executives you know.

Actually Bush's first discretionary budget -- year 2001 -- went DOWN relative to GNP.

Where are you getting that from? I don't believe it. Is that after the GNP revisions? Even if it were true, the four year numbers hold: spending is totally out of control.

Actually Bush's first discretionary budget -- year 2001 -- went DOWN relative to GNP.

This does not mean that discretionary spending decreased, but it just did not increase as fast as the GNP grew. Good way to confuse the issue though.