So Karl Rove has written a retrospective on the Bush presidency in the National Review, and I think I've caught him making a numerical claim that is flatly, demonstrably, straightforwardly false. Now, now- don't just shrug your shoulders and ask "What else is new"? When an error is this cut-and-dried, you can often get a correction with polite-but-persistent email (and I'm sure it's more effective with multiple emailers). Believe me: at different points I've gotten Powerline, Instapundit, and Jonah Goldberg all to change their posts to indicate that a previous claim was in error. Wouldn't it be fun to get Rove (or the National Review, by proxy) to an admit an error? Let me present my case:
In his piece, Rove makes the following claim (bold is mine):
The president inherited an economy entering recession. It was further weakened by terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, natural disasters, and out-of-control spending with discretionary domestic spending increasing 16 percent in the last fiscal year of his predecessor. President Bush took decisive action, cutting taxes and ratcheting down this spending.
Sorry, Karl. That's just wrong. I've got the historical budget numbers from the CBO right here. See page 7 (Discretionary Outlays), "Domestic" column. From '99 to '00 domestic discretionary spending went from $277 billion to $298.5 billion, for an increase of 7.8%, less than half what Rove claimed. Note that these are plain dollars, unadjusted for inflation or GDP growth, so any adjustments along those lines would make the percentage increase even smaller.
I guess there's some slight chance he might be referring to the increase from '00 to '01 (the prior president does bear some responsibility for the spending in the first year of the next president, since it takes a little while to push changes through Congress). That still wouldn't explain it, though. Domestic discretionary spending in '01 was $320.7 billion, for an increase of 7.4%. Rove's 16% number has got to be wrong.
I even have a theory as to why this error ended up in his piece. I can remember watching Rove give a speech on CSPAN some months ago where he claimed that the White House's proposed budget increased domestic discretionary spending by 16% in Clinton's final year. That might well be true, for all I know. I think what may have happened is that Rove sloppily dropped the distinction between the proposed budget and the spending that actually occurred. His language in the column clearly implies an increase in actual money spent.
So let's get a correction. Maybe I could get it on my own, but the chances are increased if several emails are sent (please be polite!). I guess letters@nationalreview.com is a good place for people to write, although if anybody knows if they have a specific address for corrections, that might be better. Individual editors' email may also work well. Kathryn Jean Lopez linked to Rove's piece at the Corner here, so contacting her (klopez@nationalreview.com) might be another idea.
Alternatively, if by some interpretation of the numbers Rove's claim is correct, then let me know and I'll take down this diary (I may be gone for a few hours).
P.S.: of course, Rove's claim that Bush "ratcheted down this spending" is also false. From '01 to '02, the first year Bush would clearly not share any responsibility with Clinton, discretionary domestic spending went from $320.7 billion to $359.1 billion, for an increase of 12%. Again, these are non-inflation adjusted, but there's no way the difference in inflation makes that number look better than the prior increases. Furthermore, as you'll see on page 8 of the CBO document, domestic discretionary spending has been at 3.5% to 3.6% of GDP for most of Bush's presidency after falling from 3.4% to 3.1% under Clinton.
The "ratcheted down this spending" claim is just vague enough that there's probably some rationale Rove could cite to defend that one, though. Note so with the claim about the increase in Clinton's last year. That's just false. Let's make him admit it.