GOP expense spin - Bush "cut" Clinton rate of growth of non-defense

[papau]

And after a while it turns out year 2000 with GOP in both house and Senate is the only "15%" growth year (Clinton's average was the lowest of any Pres in last 30 years)

And the "non-defense" may be apples and oranges as to what is called what in 2000 and 2003.

And gifts to Haliburton and the other business welfare is now called defense - so it does not count!

So Folks - I present GW Bush - cost cutter!!!!!

:-(

:-)

:-) (you have to smile so you do not cry when the media gives airtime to this lying spin and never questions it)

[Brucey]

1. Bastard...

Attack and spend, attack and spend...

[TacticalPeek]

2. They must have forgotten their old budget smoke:

"The dems falsely accuse us of cutting this and cutting that. These aren't cuts, they're just reductions in increases."

[papau]

3. Exclude Bush spending increase for Corp Welfare and he's cut social serv's

As you say - those social service budgets may be cuts in after inflation per person eligible payments - but as long as the total department budget increases year over year we are not cutting.

Except when we want to hide the 600 billion deficit (nearly 800 billion without Social Security Surplus) for ONE YEAR. The tax cuts were 10 year numbers, and the Clinton 5 trillion surplus was over 10 years, as is the Bush 5 trillion deficit. Of course Bush plans to have great growth in years 8, 9 and 10, so as the ABCNote says, any critical comment ignores Bush's supply side faith and is therefore unfair! - The ABC Note has become a very good media whore for Bush.

So we spin "Bush is the expense cutter from that saved us from bad old Clinton" - blink and wink at the 600 billion deficit, then show that we do not just blame Clinton because we are bigger than that, we also blame Congress -Dems only - and need more GOP control of House and Senate, and tell the media to say the words just like we put them on paper.

[w4rma]

4. Cato: The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like …

Cato: The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $455 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.
…
http://www.cato.org/research/articl...ven-030728.html