<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>PJ Media</title><link>https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/11/07/more-vs-less-guns-vs-butter-part-2/feed/</link><description>PJ Media is a leading news site covering culture, politics, faith, homeland security, and more. Our reporters and columnists provide original, in-depth analysis from a variety of perspectives.</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 21:24:05 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>More vs less, guns vs butter part 2</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[A reader writes to say that the Heritage Foundation charts in the first post graphically overstate the actual growth of the federal government over time. &amp;#8220;I have a problem with the Heritage Foundation. They have an axe to grind and they show by never showing a jey chart which is compares nominal federal spending to nominal GDP. I didn&amp;#8217;t have time to search much, but I found this: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp.php As you can see, the line is kind of flat though rising slightly. It looks much less scary than the charts of the heritage. In a growing economy, Federal spending is going to trend up and to the right. The Heritage people just want it to stop and go down.&amp;#8221;]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:03:21 -0500</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Richard Fernandez]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://pjmedia.com/richard-fernandez/2008/11/07/more-vs-less-guns-vs-butter-part-2-n186424</link></item></channel></rss>