To: CYBERKEN who wrote (172134 ) 8/16/2001 7:38:18 PM From: asenna1 Respond to of 769667 Dream On... "The Bloated Budget: Many good Americans who get their news from the major media have the impression that President Bush is trying to cut back on the total cost of government following its mercurial rise under the administration of Bill Clinton. Many may even think that he is succeeding, at least to some degree. But the record shows otherwise. In a February 22nd press conference, Bush made clear that he was not trying to cut the budget in the absolute sense, but was merely after a cut in the rate of increase: Let me remind you, and the people who are listening, that accounting in Washington is a little different than the way … the average person accounts. This is a town where if you don’t increase the budget by an expected number, it’s considered a cut. We’re going to slow the rate of growth of the budget down. It should come to no surprise to anybody that my budget is going to say loud and clear that the rate of growth of the budget, for example, from last year, was excessive. And so we’ll be slowing the rate of growth of the budget down. That, evidently, is a cut. In my parlance, it’s not a cut — when you increase spending, it’s not a cut. Later that month, Bush sent Congress a budget proposal entitled A Blueprint for New Beginnings, and in April he submitted his more detailed (and slightly revised) Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2002.* The latter document calls for federal outlays of $1,961 billion in 2002 as compared to $1,856 billion in 2001 — an increase of 5.7 percent. By comparison, the data in the Historical Tables released by the Bush White House shows that federal outlays increased by 3.0 percent from 1998 to 1999; by 5.0 percent from 1999 to 2000; and by an estimated 3.7 percent from 2000 to 2001. Thus, according to Bush’s own budget proposal, he is advocating an increase in the rate of spending as opposed to a decrease.