Bush's Deceptions on Discretionary Spending

[priller]

If I heard correctly, Bush stated in the news conference that discretionary spending was increasing at over 10% a year before he came into office, that since he took over it has reduced and this year would only be about a 4% increase. Called that an "interesting fact".

But this "fact" is not at all what I have read in other places. For example, from the WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28252-2003Nov11?language=printer

Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 (2003), capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.

The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.


Rather than giving outright false statistics (but I wouldn't put it past him), I imagine that the numbers Bush is giving rely on some sort of tortured definition of "discretionary spending". But even if you limit it to non-defense discretionary spending, the Cato Institute reports:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-01-03.html

Let's look at the facts. Compared to the same point in Reagan's first term, not only is Bush a bigger spender than Reagan, he's a big spender in his own right. Adjusted for inflation, total spending under Bush's watch will have increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under Reagan. But more indicative of Bush's spending problem is the run-up in discretionary spending under his watch. Discretionary spending represents funds for programs that Congress has to allocate for on an annual basis and it is the type of spending that the president has the most influence over.

Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men.


So where are Bush's numbes coming from?