>On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
>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...
> 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.
You were the one who used the percentage of GDP as a measure. Now GDP has been growing briskly since 1992, so if the percentage remains the same, that means means-tested entitlements have been increasing at the same rate as that growth.
Now, in a time of a radical upsurge in social movements, holding even with economic growth would be sad. But in the face of a global corporate assault on living standards and a rightwing GOP takeover of both houses of Congress, it is hardly a case for arguing that Dubya would be an improvement, since the House GOP's budget in 1995 made it clear that spending could have been cut quite substantially in the abscence of a Clinton veto.
If you want to summarize the Clinton years, you end up with social programs holding roughly even as a percentage of GDP, with the tax burden being decreased on the working poor & lower middle class with effective tax rates being increased on the wealthy.
I know you were not really arguing for Dubya, but you just feed the silliness. A more interesting comparison would be on the Dem Congress measure-- how much was lost between 1981 and 1987 when the GOP controlled the Senate, versus how fast was growth in programs from 1987 to 1995 when Dems controlled both houses of Congres.
-- Nathan Newman