Bloglines user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent this item to you, with the following personal message: I think Krugman point of view is a clear winner here.
Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back! | | |
| By Donald L. Luskin http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/03/bogus-bush-bashing.html In his March 20 New York Times column, Paul Krugman attacked our friend Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation as a "bogus Bush basher": So where does the notion of Bush the big spender come from? In a direct sense it comes largely from Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, who issued a report last fall alleging that government spending was out of control. Mr. Riedl is very good at his job; his report shifts artfully back and forth among various measures of spending (nominal, real, total, domestic, discretionary, domestic discretionary), managing to convey the false impression that soaring spending on domestic social programs is a major cause of the federal budget deficit without literally lying. Today the Times ran a letter from Riedl defending himself. Funny how the Times is willing to let conservatives defend themselves so long as they bash Bush in the process. To the Editor:
In "Bogus Bush Bashing" (column, March 20), my old professor Paul Krugman criticizes my analyses of runaway domestic spending while calling the entire issue bogus. His rhetoric is hot, but he does not dispute a single fact or statistic in my work.
The federal government's own budget historical tables show nominal federal spending has leaped 45 percent since 2001, two-thirds of it unrelated to defense or homeland security. Non-security discretionary outlays are expanding 7.2 percent a year under President Bush, versus 4.2 percent under President Clinton.
How about social spending?
Since 2001, education spending has surged 137 percent, and health research and regulation spending has jumped 78 percent. Higher benefits and an expansion of Medicaid and food-stamp eligibility have pushed federal antipoverty spending above 3 percent of gross domestic product for the first time ever.
These government budget data expose conjecture about mean-spirited G.O.P. budget-cutters for the straw man that it is.
Brian Riedl
Washington, March 21, 2006
The writer is a fellow for federal budgetary affairs at the Heritage Foundation. | | | | |
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/
Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
No comments:
Post a Comment