The budget was unreasonable, and I did specify that he was on board with the policy.
What I didn't specify was why the policy was adopted in the first place, because it's something that's been covered ad nauseum here.
Those who were convinced before by the "he had money but he refused to spend because he's a stubborn idealist" thesis won't be swayed , neither will those who subscribed to the view that the money was not avaible for him to spend and that the spending restrictions were a necessity.
I don't see the value in discussing the above again unless people do so with an open mind, that's rarely the case when this subject is discussed, so every debate ends up at the same impasse.
