exept for one time and that was after 9/11.
-sm
--- Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Sam Morris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You think Bush is spending a lot, wait and see
> what
> > happens if Kerry wins.
>
> It doesn't matter what Mr. Kerry says he wants to
> do; his congress and
> senate will be Republican led. A divided executive
> and legislative
> government can't pass law unless they agree - and
> since they will both
> keep the other in check the fiscal bleeding will
> immediately stop.
>
> The fastest spending growth (real federal outlays)
> occurred during:
>
> 1.) Kennedy-Johnson, 4.8% annually, same party in
> congress.
>
> 2.) Bush-Cheney, 4.4%, same party in congress.
>
> 3.) Carter-Mondale, 3.7%, same party in congress.
>
>
> The slowest spending growth occurred:
>
> 1.) 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years,
> other party controls congress.
>
> 2.) 0.9%, was in the Clinton era, opposite party
> congress.
>
> 3.) Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, opposite congress.
>
> 4.) Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%, opposite
> congress.
>
> If you exclude military spending and only include
> real domestic
> discretionary outlays then Mr. Bush looks even
> worse. The largest
> spenders are then:
>
> 1.) Bush-Cheney, 8.2% increases
>
> 2.) Ford, 8%.
>
> 3.) Nixon.
>
>
> The point is, historically, what keeps spending down
> is a split
> Presidency and Congress. So fiscal conservatives
> really only have one
> choice in this debate: Mr. Kerry.
>
> If you don't believe me ask Douglas Bandow, senior
> fellow at the Cato
> Institute, former visiting fellow at the Heritage
> Foundation, and a
> former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.
> He's the guy who
> originated this argument.
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
