WP notes Bush lie:on MTP re Clinton Budget

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30661-2004Feb10.html

Presidential Fact Check Wednesday, February 11, 2004; Page A30

PRESIDENT BUSH HAD some calming words Sunday for anyone worried about the explosive growth in federal spending. "If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined," Mr. Bush told NBC's Tim Russert. There was only one problem with Mr. Bush's statement: It was wrong. Discretionary spending did not grow nearly as much during Mr. Clinton's tenure as Mr. Bush implied, nor has his spending record been nearly as restrained as his comments suggest.

As the White House acknowledged, Mr. Bush misspoke when he referred to discretionary spending in general. A spokesman explained that Mr. Bush meant to refer only to the portion of discretionary spending, less than half the total, that goes to programs other than defense and homeland security. On that portion of spending, Mr. Bush was essentially correct: The increase in spending has been slower than during Mr. Clinton's final year, and while the spending bills enacted during Mr. Bush's tenure have not "steadily declined" in overall dollar terms, the rate of increase has been getting slower.

Even then, though, Mr. Bush overstated the rise in spending in the last year of the Clinton administration, when the budget enjoyed a surplus -- it was about 10 percent, and that hike followed years of much slower growth. Moreover, overall federal spending on discretionary programs has risen far more during the Bush administration than it did in the Clinton years, driven by increases in defense spending (which has grown by nearly half, including the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) and homeland security (for which the budget has tripled).<snip>


<snip>
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has presided over a huge -- and bigger than first advertised -- increase in mandatory spending with the addition of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare now estimated to cost $534 billion in its first decade. Having put that in place, he now shows little appetite for curbing the growth of entitlement programs, which account for a far bigger share of the federal budget. Indeed, his proposal to create private accounts for Social Security, restated in the budget just released, would make the cost of the prescription drug bill look trivial. Mr. Bush argued on Sunday that his record has been one of fiscal restraint. The facts -- once checked -- show otherwise.

[Gman]

1. As soon as Clinton's penis is alluded to

the red flags go up.

[MoonAndSun]

2. It is true that when the media smell blood, they circle like sharks.

It is about time they start helding bush's* words and statement accountable. For 3 years they have let him and his administration say anything and not question their words.

Now that everyone is piling on, they start critiquing all of his statements.

Just think how much pain this country would not have experienced if the media would have done their jobs 4 years ago. It makes me ill.

[rock]

3. Proving any statement is true if you qualify it enough

I mean any statement I make. Except when I'm joking. Or it's Thursday. (OK, you get the point)

[papau]

4. will media notice/object to all the post statement Bush "qualifiers"=lies?

but "lies" is a word we only used with stories about Dems, I guess.

[cosmicaug]

5. Gosh!

Gosh, if it's not non-defense discretionary spending increases that are the main contribution to the federal budget deficit which is massively adding to our debt burden (as so many conservatives unhappy with the Bush administration are claiming), what could be the the main contribution?

Could it be (as Krugman claims) Bush's misguided tax cuts?

Nah, tax cut good, what was I thinking?