Clinton reduced the burden of government, while Bush has expanded it. Why?

Bring Back Clinton

"...on Bush's watch, and with his signature, the burden of federal spending rose to 20.3 percent of GDP in '06, up from just 18.5 percent when he took office.

"During the Clinton years, by contrast, federal spending fell as a share of GDP, from 21.4 percent in '93 to 18.5 percent in '01."

"... even when defense spending is excluded, Clinton reduced the burden of government, while Bush has expanded it. And while Bush's tax policy has been an improvement, his overall economic policy does not reflect well on him."

"Bush has allowed federal spending to climb by nearly $800 billion in 6 years, and he hasn't once used his veto power to control the size of government."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...

Interesting that you dont quote this part of YOUR OWN ARTICLE.

"Of course, this analysis only addresses what happened during each President's tenure, not whether he himself deserves credit for it. Clinton, for instance, hardly relished some of the policies he signed into law, including welfare reform and the lower tax rate on capital gains.

Nor does this analysis give Presidents credit or blame for policies they proposed but failed to get enacted. Bush's score would doubtlessly jump if Congress had approved personal retirement accounts, and Clinton's would drop precipitously if Congress had approved his government-run health care scheme."

No.

Maybe you should include gov't entitlements (handouts) in there. I would bet they skyrocketed under Clinton.