NCLB was a big money-maker for the ed budget. Again, not necessarily well-designed (I hate the focus on standardized testing, for instance), but the premise was that the Gov is being strangled. It isn't.
DH's tightening point I agree with. But with a 2% cut, the Gov would still be about as big as it has been for a long while.
I haven't looked up the inflation component. It's a good question.
CATO maniac Chris Edwards has a good piece up that shows how hollow the spending freeze proposal is, from the standpoint of actual, uh, spending. My objection is the rhetorical and political impact. As with Clinton's anti-deficit rhetoric, it reinforces a public discourse that is inimical to domestic policy initiatives. In the present context, the "freeze" blocks possibilities for further stimulus, which we badly need and might need even more if the dreaded double-dip transpires.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Matthias Wasser
<matthias.wasser at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Mark Rickling <mrickling at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Bush II was clearly better on social spending.
>>
>> Was this mostly or all Medicare Part D?
>>
>
> Which was a ridiculous boondoggle.
>
> There was also NCLB, which has its well-known problems, but did plow a lot
> of money into schools - am I wrong on this?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>