On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Max Sawicky wrote:
>>> In 1991 it was 15.1% of GDP, a
>>> peak after some hits during the Reagan administration (roughly 3% of
>>> GDP, which is big in this context). Bush I nearly restored it to
>>> pre-Reagan levels. Clinton took it
>>> down to as low as 13.6. Bush II brought it back to 15.3, nearly the
>>> post-WWIIpeak.
>>
>> So Max, are you saying social spending was better under Bush I and Bush II
>> than it was under Clinton?
>
> Yes. I've been saying this for years.
One last question to add to all the ones you've already fielded: could this possibly be an artifact of the GDP comparison? The economy was pretty flat under Bush I and II; GDP growth averaged 3.7% per year under Clinton. Could this explain part of these ratio -- that what it was being compared to was growing so much slower under the Bushes? Do you get the same trends if you compared spending in absolute real dollars?
Michael