Gore v. Bush; there is a difference

J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. rosserjb at jmu.edu
Sat Nov 4 13:45:35 PST 2000


One has to be aware of who was in Congress. Thus, Gerry Ford had the post-Watergate, relatively progressive Congress elected in 1974. Since 1994 the Repugs have been running the show in Congress, although Clinton early on decided against a major domestic spending push, despite having campaigned for one. Perhaps spending would have gone up if he (and Hillary) had gotten it together on health care. The lost opportunity for single payer then is one of the biggest domestic goofs that Clinton had. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Breslin <dbreslin at ctol.net> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: Re: Gore v. Bush; there is a difference


>Max,
>
>Interesting. What does it mean?
>
>Could you translate "Growth of Non-defense Appropriations by
>Presidency; Average annual percent change in real outlays,
>adjusted for timing shifts"?
>
>What exactly did Ford in his truncated presidency that
>elevates him to the top? In fact, what did these
>Republican Presidents actually do with these non-defense
>appropriations? Sam Donaldson's sheep farm subsidies
>certainly boosts Bush's spending.
>
>Dennis Breslin
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list