Bush Spending: out of control

[gh0st]

Veronique de Rugy is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and Tad DeHaven is a former research assistant for the Cato Institute. This article was published in April 2003.

George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. It's true that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across-the-board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. And Reagan, indeed, lightened the tax burden on the American people and oversaw a massive increase in defense spending. Thus, given Bush's recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting.

But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan.

Let's look at the facts. Compared to the same point in Reagan's first term, not only is Bush a bigger spender than Reagan, he's a big spender in his own right. Adjusted for inflation, total spending under Bush's watch will have increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under Reagan. But more indicative of Bush's spending problem is the run-up in discretionary spending under his watch. Discretionary spending represents funds for programs that Congress has to allocate for on an annual basis and it is the type of spending that the president has the most influence over.

Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men.

The table at the bottom compares nondefense discretionary spending levels between Reagan and Bush. President Reagan managed to cut spending in most categories. In contrast, Bush has not only failed to match Reagan in reducing spending, spending has actually gone up across the board -- and often at exorbitant levels.

Reagan and Bush both inherited defense budgets that were inadequate for the threats facing the nation. As noted, both men sought -- and won -- substantial increases in defense spending from Congress. And, while providing for the defense of the nation is a defined responsibility of the federal government, most non-defense discretionary endeavors are not. Spending money on advanced weaponry to fight terrorism is more important than funding the National Endowment for the Arts or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Thus, it is Bush's failure to limit government spending on those latter constitutionally murkier activities that prevents him from matching Reagan's accomplishments.

Of course, the argument can be made that it is unfair to lay excessive blame on Bush for over-spending given that Congress controls the purse strings. A recent study shows that three out of the top five all-time federal spending sprees occurred in the last five years under Republican-controlled Congresses (the other two occurred during World War II). Thus, President Bush appears to have inherited a Congress with established spendthrift credentials.

However, that excuse is diminished by the fact that Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his three years in office. Instead, he has agreed to sign every piece of legislation crossing his desk, including a bloated farm bill and an intrusive education bill. In contrast, President Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills during his first three years in office.

In addition, Bush has been the beneficiary of a considerably more favorable party arrangement in Congress. Although Republicans controlled the Senate during Reagan's first term, Democrats dominated the House -- by a 100-seat margin at one point. Bush, on the other hand, has enjoyed the luxury of a GOP-controlled House and Senate (with the exception of a five-month loss of control in the Senate to the Democrats when GOP Sen. Jim Jeffords left the party). While Reagan was sufficiently successful at taming a doubting and often hostile Congress, Bush has demonstrated a lack of conviction in tempering the spending desires of a comparatively receptive Hill.

While President Bush is obviously aware of the benefits and the need to cut taxes as a way to trigger economic growth, the government continues to expand, bureaucratic programs blossom, and talk of eliminating entire government departments is a distant memory. No, Bush is no Reagan. And despite the self-proclaimed party of limited government controlling the White House and the Congress, it continues to move further and further away from the limited government envisioned by our founding fathers.

see link for graph. i'd known bush's spending was abnormally large but i had no idea it differed this much from everyone else. his spending in his first term was DOUBLE clintons... hell, during his whole term he doubled the spending of LBJ. thats farking ridiculous.. dont think i'll be crying when he's out of office.

 

[satch919]

Conservative?!? What a joke.

Why the hell did all these conservatives even vote for this guy? He was bad news from the beginning. It's too late now. You voted for him.

We need to get together and find a way to get him out of office. He's wronged everyone at least once.

We have a failed business man running our country!!! How in the hell did this happen?:frown:

 

[Kmack]

How in the hell did this happen?:frown:

think of all the white trash, think of all the rednecks, think of all the crazy christians, think of all the super rich, think of everyone in big business. basically think of every single think that is wrong with this country and then imagine them uniting under a moron who embodies everything wrong in modern society.

i need a new country

 

[Tr0n]

I'm a redneck and white trash...yet I hate bush. Or am I an exception?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Jumping to conclusions based on race is bad, mmkay?

I'm a redneck and white trash...yet I hate bush. Or am I an exception?

On the other hand though, you certainly aren't the majority in that regard. Just look at all the red states after the election.
Regardless of race, the center of america is Bush's largest support base by far, and he appeals mostly to the religious white folks there.

Basically, Kmack stated a correct point as dumbly as he could have.

Ya know K, you're not presenting yourself as a great alternative to Bush voters.

 

[Pesmerga]

think of all the white trash, think of all the rednecks, think of all the crazy christians, think of all the super rich, think of everyone in big business. basically think of every single think that is wrong with this country and then imagine them uniting under a moron who embodies everything wrong in modern society.

i need a new country

And people wonder why we voted for Bush...

 

[Zeus]

think of all the white trash, think of all the rednecks, think of all the crazy christians, think of all the super rich, think of everyone in big business. basically think of every single think that is wrong with this country and then imagine them uniting under a moron who embodies everything wrong in modern society.

i need a new country

while I don't 100% agree with yet another one of Kmack's sweeping generalizations my friend IRL says he likes bush because he's a christian like he is..and he wont give any other (political) reasoning for liking bush..

 

[Tr0n]

I advise you to punch your friend in the face.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And people wonder why we voted for Bush...

Wait... you made the bad choice because you didn't want to be seen as a person who makes bad choices?

'Those people think I'm destroying the country? Why, I'll vote for Bush just to prove them wrong!'

 

[Icarusintel]

Did anyone think to stack it up next to the Gross National Product? It's still pretty small compared to how much money is generated in the US every year. But I guess if no one cares about economics we can all return to bashing Bush.

 

[Tr0n]

You mean bashing him like how he's a terrorist and all? Or is it not possible for presidents to be that?

 

[Pesmerga]

Wait... you made the bad choice because you didn't want to be seen as a person who makes bad choices?

'Those people think I'm destroying the country? Why, I'll vote for Bush just to prove them wrong!'

No... that's not what I said at all.

I meant that Kmack's post is just another excellent example of the idiocy that I would rather vote for the other guy.

There is no real "good" choice in choosing for a president at any election, especially as vague and obviously ill-destined as both Kerry and Bush were. There's only past judgements, popular vote, and gut feeling. There's no other determining factor in voting for a president that you know little about what makes him tick.

 

[Adabiviak]

It's what republicans do. We have a republican president. We are a republic. Therefore, it's how our money is spent.

Really, though, this stinks. He's gotten away with worse things in my opinion, but this is another medal. It's surprising to me just how much he and his cabinet can fcku this country and get away with it.

 

[MrWhite]

Yes, my ex-girlfriend's mother thinks bush is the best thing in the world and that he is a true man of god and this country, and this country alone is blessed by God.


We've got the American Jesus, see him on the interstate...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Dear oh dear oh dear.

 

[Kmack]

hey, what i said was true. in general anyone who falls into one or more of those categories would prefer to vote for bush based on his political views.

 

[Icarusintel]

You mean bashing him like how he's a terrorist and all? Or is it not possible for presidents to be that?

no, i just meant the general bush hate-fest that the politics forum tends to be, since there never seems to be much else in here

 

[Kmack]

no, i just meant the general bush hate-fest that the politics forum tends to be, since there never seems to be much else in here

perhaps that is because it is the right thing to do (hating and vocalizing said hatred for bush). i feel its the only thing i CAN do to express my opinions on that atrocity of a president. he will be looked back on with great shame, but, until that time, bitching about him is the best we got :E

 

[Icarusintel]

perhaps that is because it is the right thing to do (hating and vocalizing said hatred for bush). i feel its the only thing i CAN do to express my opinions on that atrocity of a president. he will be looked back on with great shame, but, until that time, bitching about him is the best we got :E

no, it's actually not all you have
unless you happened to forget there are people called elected representatives who we vote for, and these people do have quite a bit of power and control, especially when it comes to a budget
now, you can write these people letters, emails, etc. and they should listen, especially if enough people send them things, since they're supposed to represent us
now, if they're not representing your views you can vote in new ones who will, and thus you can actually do something other than bitching, which only endears you to the others who bitch about bush and don't really do anything, while it does nothign for those who like bush and aren;t going to change their minds about him, no matter what you say or do

of course, this is assuming you live in the US... if you don;t, well, go back to your bitching

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

arghhh. reagon was a bastard aswell. Only he had recognisable amount of intelligence.

 

[No Limit]

And people wonder why we voted for Bush...

You voted for Bush not because you liked his policies but instead because people on the other side were mean? I have a reality check for you, not only were people on your side just as 'mean' (calling liberals terrorists, traitors, etc) but you have also ****ed this country up in the process.

Did anyone think to stack it up next to the Gross National Product? It's still pretty small compared to how much money is generated in the US every year. But I guess if no one cares about economics we can all return to bashing Bush.

Do you really want to argue economics?

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

 

[CptStern]

arghhh. reagon was a bastard aswell. Only he had recognisable amount of intelligence.

he was a loon who consulted astrology charts before making big decisions ..he once scared the soviets so badly over a comment on the radio that they put their nuclear defenses on alert thinking the americans were going to launch a nuclear strike

I cant think of a republican president in recent history who wasnt either a crook, a loon or a liar ...not that that wouldnt apply to democrats but goddam these guys were exceptional loons/liars/crooks

 

[kirovman]

The Republican administration is just frightening.

 

[Icarusintel]

Do you really want to argue economics?

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

did you look at those graphs? sure spending has increased, but it is still only about 10% of the GDP, which is a pittance.. if anything you helped me out here, thanks

 

[No Limit]

did you look at those graphs? sure spending has increased, but it is still only about 10% of the GDP, which is a pittance.. if anything you helped me out here, thanks

GDP doesn't mean anything, you are not looking at what is importent. Currently for the year 2004 Bush spent 412 billion more than what he had in the bank. Compare that to Clinton who was actually bringing in revenue of 236 billion when he left office. Do you know who Bush is borrowing money from to pay for his spending? Mostly China. This means that China could cripple our economy overnight if they decided to cash in all their bonds. You also have to consider all the cuts Bush had made; when Clinton was in office we had a surplus and yet he was providing many social services. Bush, when he went in to office cut those services by billions of dollars. Yes, our GDP is important but it really doesn't relate to how much money the government has in the bank.

 

[Sulkdodds]

YOU PEOPLE HAVE RAPED POLITICS, TURNED IT UPSIDE-DOWN AND BUKKAKE'D IT. BACKWARDS!

 

[No Limit]

YOU PEOPLE HAVE RAPED POLITICS, TURNED IT UPSIDE-DOWN AND BUKKAKE'D IT. BACKWARDS!

How so?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Because because because because of the wonderful things he does.

Because:

Politics is so much more than just left and right. There are different degrees, and left wingists don't all believe the same thing, and right wingists don't all believe the same thing, and you can in fact be both left-wing and right wing. But nobody acknowledges that. ALL THIS IS for some of you is right vs left, black vs white or vice versa depending on what side you're on. And that's the ****ing point - all it's about now is what side you're on. There are, apparently, no shades of grey.

And half the time it's a pissing contest. Half the time it's either one opinion or the other, and a shouting match, and there's only two sides of each argument.

And right-wing isn't about hating gays or being jingoistic or state control or pro-life or religious madness or hate hate hate or that shit! Left-wing isn't about being liberal and wanting complete freedom and anti-war and tree-hugging and anti-globalisation and all that stuff! THERE IS MORE THAN JUST BLACK AND WHITE.

Politics is not this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v108/Sulkdodds/blacknwite.jpg

It's more akin to this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v108/Sulkdodds/corel.jpg

You can be a liberal conservative. You can be a left wing authoritarian. In my opinion the extent to which America has oversimplified and polarized its politics is frankly mad. You've stripped it down and distorted it to the point where it's irrelevant. I've only recently begun to realise the true insanity.

Spoiler

Feath has actually been wont to argue something along these lines for a while now but after taking just a few weeks of my AS politics course I see what he means...unless of course I'm entirely wrong.

Of course there's the possibility that I'm talking out of my arse.

 

[No Limit]

I wouldn't say you are talking out of your arse, I agree with you. Nobody, I don't think, has ever disputed there is a very large spectrum between right and left. I have many liberal positions but I also do share some conservative positions. But you have to understand, when you get invovled in political discussion and you actually start to form your political beliefs you will learn that most of your views actually fall in to left/right. Let me ask you the following:

Do you support the UN?

Do you support the Iraq war?

If you give me the answer to one of those questions 99% of the time I can gurantee you I will be able to tell you what your response will be to the other one.

 

[Sulkdodds]

We'll see about that!

What do you mean by 'support the UN'? I don't think it should be dispanded, I guess. But I honestly don't know enough about that.

Now try and guess answer 2!

 

[No Limit]

You didn't give me a clear cut response but from what you said I'll take a stab at it.

In 2003 you supported invasion but lately you don't support this war. Right or wrong?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I actually never supported the invasion. BUT!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. While the invasion of Iraq is something to discuss, it seems to be almost ALL that gets discussed. But it's not a leftwing/rightwing matter! You could be right wing and be totally against the war.

I have never seen anyone here actually debate the virtues of a small government, privatisation, low taxation, and self-help versus large government and heavy taxation on the rich and more socialist tendencies.

All it is is Iraq, Iraq, US Foreign Policy, Oil oil oil, Katrina Katrina, gays gays, Church Church. Now all of this is perfectly valid for discussion but NONE of it is actually much to do with the opposing forces, if they must be so simplified, of Right and Left. But relentlessly, without fail, the so-called left and the so-called right argue about these things and make generalisations and point fingers as if the subject is anything much to do with Right and Left!

 

[Raziaar]

I actually never supported the invasion. BUT!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. While the invasion of Iraq is something to discuss, it seems to be almost ALL that gets discussed. But it's not a leftwing/rightwing matter! You could be right wing and be totally against the war.

I have never seen anyone here actually debate the virtues of a small government, privatisation, low taxation, and self-help versus large government and heavy taxation on the rich and more socialist tendencies.

All it is is Iraq, Iraq, US Foreign Policy, Oil oil oil, Katrina Katrina, gays gays, Church Church. Now all of this is perfectly valid for discussion but NONE of it is actually much to do with the opposing forces, if they must be so simplified, of Right and Left. But relentlessly, without fail, the so-called left and the so-called right argue about these things and make generalisations and point fingers as if the subject is anything much to do with Right and Left!

I agree with you 100% man.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

I've given up on this buffoon. All I want to see is him veto ONE spending bill before he leaves office. But since the republican agenda is all that makes it out of committee, we'll probobly see the new G&R album before we see that.

 

[SFLUFAN]

As a traditional conservative Republican, all I've got to say is that George W. Bush is the best liberal socialist touchy-feely idealistic do-gooder President the United States has ever had.

Seriously, he would fit right in with any Social Democratic party in Europe with the amount of money he seems to enjoy throwing at every problem.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm disheartened. Our parties are sucking. As one blogged put it well- Republicans are becoming Democrats, Democrats are becoming Socialists, Socialists are becoming Communists, and Communists are becoming Cindy Sheehan's roommates.

However, I fear a Perot like Reform backlash like we saw in 1992. We need to recentralize. We can't splinter again against each other. My father and aunt voted for Perot in 1992 and my mother will never get off their case for it, it brought us the Clinton years. But I don't blame them, if I'd been able to go at the time, I may very well have gone Perot. Too MUCH concentration on conservative social issues has caused a serious lacking in our true mission, the conservative fiscal approach.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

What's wrong with some degree of socialism??

 

[SFLUFAN]

I'm disheartened. Our parties are sucking. As one blogged put it well- Republicans are becoming Democrats, Democrats are becoming Socialists, Socialists are becoming Communists, and Communists are becoming Cindy Sheehan's roommates.

However, I fear a Perot like Reform backlash like we saw in 1992. We need to recentralize. We can't splinter again against each other. My father and aunt voted for Perot in 1992 and my mother will never get off their case for it, it brought us the Clinton years. But I don't blame them, if I'd been able to go at the time, I may very well have gone Perot. Too MUCH concentration on conservative social issues has caused a serious lacking in our true mission, the conservative fiscal approach.

EXACTLY - who really cares about "social issues"? Those don't matter in the long-run at all. It's economic issues that truly matter - and the "Republican" party has long since lost sight of that.

And as for what's wrong with a degree of socialism? Well, I just happen to think that socialism runs contrary to innate selfishness of human nature and thus does not present a logical economic philosophy.

You see - these so-called "neocons" (whose intellectdual leadership is largely made up of former Trotskyists) are "big government conservatives" which might very well be the worst of all possible worlds. You have conservatives who don't want to raise taxes combined with conservatives who want to expand government? Someone care to explain to me exactly how that is supposed to work?!?

Nah - these aren't Republicans in the least. Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower would be aghast at these socialists in conservative clothing!

I will say this - I would fully support a limited amount of economic "shock treatment" for the United States where speding is cut significantly and taxes are raised dramatically in order to balance the budget and substantially reduce the national debt. Yes, it will more than likely cause a recession in the short-term, but I believe that such austerity measures are needed for the long-term benefit of putting this country's fiscal house is in order. Once these goals have been achieved - the balance budget and a 25%-33% reduction in the national debt - tax rates would come down again and government spending allowed to SLOWLY increase.

Part of being a conservative is being logical and realist (this is supposedly what separates us from the idealistic, wooly-headed liberals though these neocons are just as idealistic and wooly-headed as any left-wing academic) and knowing when the time has come to sacrifice - that time is now.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The problem is we aren't happy with the alternatives though. While this is a major problem with our own candidates, the opposition is insanely worse, which is depressing. I only wish Perot had really WON the 92 election. The 2 party national dominance would be broken down.

 

[clarky003]

lets face it, there are too many rich and powerful idiot's in this world who have a massive say in how things are done, more intelligent less egotistical types who actually make the world bearable to live in.. dont get into politic's, its all arse end round, which is why the world is becoming so f****d up.. money is making the worst of people and unfortunately money is what what gives you power, not intelligence or good moral's, greed is blowing sustainable society out the window gradually.

That is simply one main aspect of why achieving peaceful society's within our current system is utter bollocks, Things have to change drastically if we really want a safer world, It may require a mass revolution. But its true there's only certain amounts of incompetance and stress people can take, problem is If the whole of America rebelled against the US government .. they might be forced to show their true colours and use their own army to prevent that.