With the Clinton budgets, one has to mind the
shells that are empty, not just the one with the
pea.
The decline in defense and the increase in the
EITC are significant, as Nathan says.
A better view of the other stuff, or the whole
picture, is obtained by considering the trend in
domestic spending as a share of GDP, or to be
precise, total outlays less defense and net interest
payments. This peaks in 1980, takes a long but
not enormous dip over the 1980's (e.g., less than
2% of GDP), and is restored by that great man
George Bush to pre-Reagan levels. (One must
understand that to Nixon and Ford we owe the
greatest growth in this variable.) In contrast,
apres Bush such spending slides down and is
projected to continue so in the present golden
age of budget surpluses and tobacco settlements.
The spending here does not include EITC, which
I took note of above. One can see from Nathan's
numbers that the better part of the public assistance
increase was due to the EITC and SSI, the latter
focused on the elderly and reflecting health care
cost pressures, to some extent (2/3rds of SSI $$ is
for indigent old folks in nursing homes).
The point about the GOP attack on the EITC is
well-taken, though we do have a breather this year.
Nathan Newman wrote:
> ========================================================
> GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS
> ========================================================
> . . .
====================================================
Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice)
Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax)
1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
