On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:21:18PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > By the way, I don't have the numbers handy, but I read today that > Clinton & C0., with his, quote, "expert balance of spending", incrased > discretionary spending at 9% a year during the 90's. Bush, on the > other hand, is keeping increases in discrtionary much less than that > (the 2003 figure is still being negotiated, but it looks to be around > 4%.)
I've often heard the term "discretionary spending", enough that I have a vague idea what is meant by the context. But, is there a precise definition? Why separate out some spending and call it "discretionary" and imply that other spending is mandatory? When it comes down to it, isn't all spending discretionary? If you are really short of funds, you could cut about anything. So, while I do genuinely what to know if their is a precise definition of what is "discretionary" (please tell me one if you know), I wonder if the choice of what is discretionary is somewhat arbitrary, so when people quote numbers like you did above, I wonder if there is some bias. Given a choice between comparing total spending, why would you want to separate out some fraction of that spending in a somewhat arbitrary way and draw conclusions on that? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
