Max Sawicky wrote on Mon Jan 31 2000:
> Presidential Terms and Federal Spending, 1980-1999
> (By Fiscal Year, Percent of GDP)
> (source: Economic and Budget Outlook, CBO, January 2000)
>
> 1976 1980 1988 1992 1999
>
> Entitlements & Other Mandatory 10.9 10.7 10.1 11.5 10.7
>
> Domestic Discretionary 4.5 4.7 3.1 3.4 3.1
>
> Defense & International 5.6 5.4 6.1 5.2 3.2
>
> Net Interest 1.5 1.9 3.0 3.2 2.5
> By these numbers our most liberal president since 1976 has been . . .
> George H.W. Bush, with the assistance of a Democratic Congress.
Percentage of GDP is usually the right measure if one wants to measure carrying cost. But does it make sense if one wants to measure "generosity" of entitlements? From the point of view of the recipients what matters is how much they each get. So it seems like entitlement spending per capita would be a more accurate measure of generosity.
The reason I bring this up is because under this measure, it seems like the relative share of Dubya's entitlement would go up in part because the economy was doing so badly on his watch -- if GDP contracts, the share goes up, no? Not even counting the countercyclical spending? And vice versa with Clinton. I don't mean to deny for a moment that he talks left and cuts right. But wouldn't entitlements as a share of GDP go down on his watch even if he left them untouched in per capita terms just because the economy has been steadily growing over his entire 8 year term?
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com