>On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
>
> NN:
> so don't overcredit Bush
> for presiding over a recession. Obviously, given the evil 1996
> welfare law, economic expansion does not excuse some of the decrease in
discretionary
> spending for Clinton, but it does explain some in a non-conservative way.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> [mbs]: The decline in domestic discretionary cannot be brushed aside this
> way. AFDC and Food Stamps were entitlements, not discretionary.
This is why I hate the entitlement- discretionary division-- it's basic DC-speak that has little meaning to most people.
Let's pull your numbers apart a bit:
> 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
Okay, let's pull the numbers apart a bit, start with "Entitlements and Other Mandatory", which includes a whole grabbag of budgeting issues, such as deposit insurance and other mandatory obligations. Max can add other key areas, but let's break out "social security" and "means-tested entitlements" (I don't have the recent numbers, so using last years budget tables):
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
There was a strong increase in means-tested entitlements under Bush and the Democratic Congress, which despite the economic recovery continued and was expanded in the first years of Clinton and the Democratic Congress. The increase as a percentage of GDP levelled off with the GOP takeover of Congress, but the fact remains that means-tested entitlements are higher as a percentage of GDP in 1999 than they were under Bush and far higher than under Reagan or under Carter or under Nixon (Doug's favorite President on domestic policy- only 1.4% in Nixon's last year).
Now, on the discretionary side, the tables don't break it down by percentage of GNP, but here are numbers in constant 1992 dollars, which gives some sense of what areas went up and which went down under Reagan, Bush and Clinton.
1976 1980 1988 1992 1999 General science and basic research 2.4 2.4 2.8 3.5 4.8 Space and other technology 7.8 7.6 9.8 12.8 10.8 Energy 6.0 10.5 5.8 5.4 2.7 Natural resources and environment 20.8 26.4 18.6 20.0 19.6 Agriculture 2.6 2.7 2.5 4.2 4.2 Commerce and housing credit 6.4 8.7 2.8 3.4 3.0 Total Transportation 30.6 35.2 29.8 31.5 34.6 Community and regional development 10.6 15.9 5.9 6.4 9.3 Education/training/employment 36.4 43.5 28.0 33.7 39.4 Health 15.8 14.6 14.2 18.0 23.4 Income security 11.4 18.7 23.9 28.2 34.9 Veterans benefits and services 10.9 12.4 13.9 15.1 16.5 Administration of justice 7.7 7.8 10.4 14.0 19.8 General government 8.3 9.0 9.4 11.0 10.4
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.
And the less palatable increase in "administration of justice" (probably INS agents, emphasizing that increases in government spending are not always good signs.)
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.
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