Chewing the figures.(economic conditions)

NEW YORK, JULY 28

FIFTY years ago, Sen. Paul Douglas of Illinois appeared in the Senate chamber lugging a huge manuscript. He plopped it on the rostrum and--wept. Yes, he actually cried. Tears ran down his face. When he recovered, he addressed his colleagues.

"That," he said, pointing to the mass of paper, "is the budget. I have spent the past three days studying it. I am a professional economist. I can tell you that there are only two people in the United States who know what is in this budget: the director of the budget, and I. And I weep because notwithstanding that I was a college professor, I am incapable of telling you what is in that budget."

And that was 50 years ago! Talk about mutatis mutandis: 1956 to 2006--the federal budget.

But let us attempt two things at this sitting. The first is to give in simple figures the case against President Bush. Here is the spending reduced to percentage comparisons, as done for USA Today by Richard Wolf this April.

"This year," Wolf writes, "Congress trimmed $39 billion over five years from benefit programs. The White House wants to go further 'to prevent [Wolf is quoting Scott Milburn of the White House Office of Management and Budget] severe economic and fiscal consequences for our children and grandchildren.'"

Wolf then compares Bush with the previous seven presidents. He gives the average annual change in spending for each administration in three categories (all adjusted for inflation): a) overall federal spending, b) spending on defense, and c) spending on K-12 education.