> Boosting the budget is not that illogical. ...
We could argue about the extent of actual new money in Clinton's budget (I would say there is less than meets the eye, and arguably no new money), but the broader issue is well-taken. The way our system works, when public spending is deliberately increased, it usually goes up in most categories. That's the way legislative majorities are built in the U.S. Congress. That's the way spending *happens*, our preferences notwithstanding.
> . . . the fact of the matter is that the EITC and attempt to
> bring medical welfare to the US (which continues as a
> "progressive agenda item" at the federal and at the
> state level, now set as a cover-the-kids issue . . .
Again well taken, though it should be remembered that health care coverage for kids is cheap. The rest of the population is harder.
mbs