[Janice D. Soderling]

Now I've had me morning coffee and cleared me thoughts.

Thanks for more input, Michael, and welcome to the Sphere.

I have translated many financial statements, and I might accept the phrase "to grow revenues" with few or no qualms, as that implies a stewardship, a caretaking, an active and direct influence exerted on something already existing (in line with David's comment.) As in "During CEO Smith's five years in office, he concentrated on the North African market and grew cell phone revenue to an unprecedented level." (In analogy with "drove".)

Or "Using only the computer in one corner of his bedroom, a small businessman grew" (in the sense nutured) "his firm to a global enterprise in only seventeen months."

But to "grow a budget", when 1) only part of a budget has been expanded, and 2) that part receives a sudden increase (as when the anticipated tax income to budget 2011 is set to double that of the preceding year), rather than a measureable increase over time, distresses me. The latter, at least metaphorically, resembles "growth" but the former usage goes against my wooden-headed grain.

Securities grow in value, but I balk at, say, "When Mr. Jones was president of World Bank, he grew the interest rates (or the bank's debt)." A former President Anybody might influence financial trends which in turn influence the ups and downs of market values, but he does not "grow" them.

I can, however, see the propaganda value of using the term this way, as it implies that some person in power has/had sole accountability for a fiscal result. And possibly the unexpected (to some) use of the word in this way would hammer the point home. And possibly that is why the word was chosen.

To bamboozle.