nn: Okay, let's pull the numbers apart a bit . . .
1976 1980 1988 1992 1995 1999
Social Security 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.4
Means-Tested Entitlements 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You got this from the Federal Budget Historical Statistics. The latest CBO report shows means-tested/GDP in 1992 and 1999 to be identical -- 2.4%. There is a modest rise from '92 to '95, then a fall. I don't know why they differ, but I think this is grasping at straws. Taking your .2%, that's about $17 billion in today's terms, over a 7 year period, or between $2-3billion a year. It's pathetic.
nn: Now, on the discretionary side, the tables don't break it down by percentage of GNP, but here are numbers in constant 1992 dollars . . .
The big areas that had actual decreases under Clinton in absolute dollars
were space and energy spending, with slight decreases in environment and
general government spending. There were decent increases in transportation,
education & training and discretionary income security.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: Public investment is broken out in the Section 9 tables. As % of GDP, total non-defense goes from 1.8 to 1.7 from '92 to '99. R&D is absolutely flat. Direct infrastructure spending goes down. Total grants for capital investment are flat. Total ed & training is down relative to GDP. "Discretionary Income Security" (different from entitlements, and about is flat and projected to fall in nominal terms.
. . . But I will still emphasize the fact that both means-tested
entitlements, income security and eduction/training spending have all had
decent increases under Clinton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The standard for decency seems to have become adulterated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
All that said, I'd love to see more spent, but noting the Reagan years, how
anyone could argue there is any "case for Dubya" from these numbers is
beyond me. If there is any case to be made, it is for regaining a
Democratic Congress. -- Nathan Newman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree w/the latter. Did you really think I would vote for Dubya?
mbs