Cato Institute: Bush “Mother of All Big Spenders”

“July 31, 2003


'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter
by Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst and Tad DeHaven a policy researcher at the Cato Institute.

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew their income was going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company would look to cut costs should the business climate take a turn for the worse. But the administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs.

The White House spinmeisters insist that we keep the size of the deficit "in perspective." Sure it's appropriate that the budget deficit should be measured against the relative size of the economy. Today, the projected budget deficit represents 4.2 percent of the nation's GDP. Thus the folks in the Bush administration pat themselves on the back while they remind us that in the 1980s the economy handled deficits of 6 percent. So what? Apparently this administration seems to think that achieving low standards instead of the lowest is supposed to be comforting.

That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy. Even the tax cuts, which happened to be good policy, were still political in nature considering their appeal to the Republican's conservative base. At the same time, the politicos running the Bush reelection machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the liberals and special interests by throwing money at their every whim and desire. In mathematical terms, the administration calculates that satiated conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.

How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs? How else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.

But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.

Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. Our only hope is that the exploding deficit will finally cause the administration to get serious about controlling spending.”

“What? No attack on the source?

I guess the formula fails on this one.”

“naw he will just stick it to the next administration which will get raked over the coals for thier lack of spending....

perot still as whacked out as you thought?”

“These sound bite articles are so moronic.”

“bush is really a liberal.....so how come youse guys hate him so bad?”

“Sorry strat. Liberals know how to grow the economy while balancing the budget (maybe even paying down debt). Bush is presiding over a net loss of 3.1 million jobs since taking office and a budget deficit expected to soar to $455 billion this year. I expect that by the time he gets impeached, he'll make Herbert Hoover look good.”

“Did someone say AWOL, also?”

“keep your fingers crossed voilinsky, it's ya'lls only hope....bigtime suffering.

the defence rests...”

“I saw a story the other day that reminded me of you, Strat. Did you hear about the two soldiers who died and the others who've gotten sick from an unknown illness they supposedly contracted while in Iraq?

If a person wanted to emulate YOUR methods, they would say that you were hoping more would die, so the Shrub could be vindicated re: his claims of chemical and biological weapons.”

“".....hoping for suffering...."

That must be one of the slogans that the radio mutton-heads came up with.....something like, ".....liberals are the real racists...."”

“Yeah, instead of conservatives like Byrd....oh wait, he's not a conservative.”

“Robert Byrd?

I'd say he's leaning a bit to conservative.”

“Hmm, I don't know Tom. He chooses to align himself with the "compassionate" democrat party. You'll not convince me democrats are any more sensitive than republicans.”

“Byrd tends to be a party loyalist but is pretty tight with mining interests in West Virginia.......that's more of a business/conservative position.......on that issue.”

“and the King of Pork Politics, too.

But I've never voted for him.”

“Amazing fact from the Cato institute: "in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending."

Who dares to call this "liberal fuzzy math?"”

“Wait, isn't the Cato institute in league with that guy career liberal Lawrence Korb who said that we should thank Clinton for the speedy invasion of Iraq?

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread.php?id=22259&q=nav&age=-1”

“Oh yeah... Korb was a Reagan appointee, picked by Reagan to serve as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan. And the Cato institute is a famous conservative think tank. Hmmm....”

“They seem fairly speechless about this one ped. I guess Rush hasn't devoted a show to the issue yet.”

“Maybe some of these conservatives are really honest>%O”

“I'm not sure, but I thought I posted this about 2 weeks ago. I had read it already, but didn't comment on it because in my opnion, spending will probably grow from now on, regardless of who's in office. Either way, it's a shame.”

“every single democrat is preaching doom and gloom, every article in the LA times or the NY times, every story on network news, all negative. every thread about bush on TT is negative. it's all dem's have to offer. fear.

the bush jihad continues....”

“I'm stickin' pins in my Bush Voodoo Doll.....take that!”

“Tom don't you have some books to put away. I am sure they love you surfing everyday!”

“Ha ha, I've got some books to put up your's!”

“Laugh as you will Tom but I have it all now buddy!! Why do you go by Tom?”

“You can have it all!

Hmmmmmm, its just a name.”

“UpUrs = Tom Terrific.... I think we are seeing a coming out into a new Troll Mutant. UpToms or TerrificUrs.”

“Very clever, Packjack! Now, get that report done or you will fail at this amazing classroom endeavor...”

“Dang, BIG DADDY!

You been tellin' them boys OFF!”

“Have the evil libs taken control of the CATO Institute now strat?

Damn them! Those crafty bastards.”

“no violin. i've stated this many many times but they, and many conservative thinkers believe bush is not conservative enough.

bush has been able to come to the center some because the liberals have taken such a hard left turn. he's going to get the swing voters in the middle. the regan democrats, if you will.


that's why the bush jihad will end with your martyrdom.........


AHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAAA!”

“conservative thinkers... jumbo shrimp”

“I saw a story the other day that reminded me of you, Strat. Did you hear about the two soldiers who died and the others who've gotten sick from an unknown illness they supposedly contracted while in Iraq?

If a person wanted to emulate YOUR methods, they would say that you were hoping more would die, so the Shrub could be vindicated re: his claims of chemical and biological weapons."
Tilt


no tilt, my thinking would reveal that the liberals in the media and politics are all saying the same thing about it as all the other american deaths. that we are in a quagmire. that it's geurilla warfare. that we're in over our heads. that the president lied. blah blah BLAH BLAH!

liberals feel no compunction to politicize the deaths of americans to furthur their cause. they have no concience when it comes to the aquisition of power. it's all about the power. they lie every day, all day long. they dole out innuendo and heresay as truth, knowing that their mindless followers will follow their leads, and believe anything if they hear it often enough. there's no sense of fair play, no charge too outragous. dignity and character are secondary to regaining power. the end, in their minds, justifies any means. they have no moral compass, no desire to be honest or fair. just rip the dood as much as possible and clean up the mess later. it's a joke. it's all they got. integrity is not an option for modern day liberals....

it's the end of the world as you know it. liberal thinking is old school. it's outlived it's usefulness. it's on the way out the door. the lies won't hold up. they will only reveal the true motives of the liberal elite.......like you


and it's lonely at the bottom....”

“"bush has been able to come to the center some because the liberals have taken such a hard left turn"

That is what the radio fools have been tellin' you..........more Fractured Fairy Tales

Yeah, and I suppose conservatives have moved to the middle of the political spectrum?

Ha ha ! !

dribble on~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:P”

“More malicious lies(slander) from ONE ignorant hombre”

“it's all true .... any critical thought to your reply would be much more intellectually stimulating than "radio fools".

try again tom, only think this time.....”

“I'm over-matched here......your brain is on loan from Limbaugh.


I humbly bow out>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:P”

“So criticizing administration policy is morally wrong now strat?

Pointing out problems is treasonous? Was Reagan un-American when he asked “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Should the new head of central command (Abizaid) be fired for saying his troops face a classical guerrilla war? Is Tommy Franks a traitor for saying that we’ll be in Iraq for at least four more years (qWagmire)? Is it unpatriotic to mourn the loss of our soldiers? We should just ignore their deaths?”

“And.....none of it is true.
That makes you a prevaricator.


How about you try thinking?”

“NOt YOU VIOLIN!!!.....the other dewd”

“dood, you are ....way off base.

haven't heard limbaugh in at least 10 days....

don't need him or anybody else to see the truth. i have the ability to the filter through the manure of the democratic party and the nards to call you on it....


you have ...... a tattered party and huge mess to explain


chin up ole boy....maybe howard dean will save us all.....














BAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHA HAHHAAAAAAAAA! ! !”

“And just how did Tilt get invited into the 'liberal elite'? Where's my invite?”

“There's nothing wrong with any of what you said violin.
And there's nothing legally wrong with making fun of Bush or calling him names, luckily for some of the "enlightened" ones around here. It just shows a lack of intelligence and class when the best you can do is make up cute little names and insults for the sitting president. As much as I disliked Clinton, I had the will power to keep my opinion of him private while he was in office, and even now find it passe to criticize any past president very much.”

“"They dole out innuendo and heresay as truth, knowing that their mindless followers will follow their leads..."

Stratdewd

This from the guy who says there was no surplus under Clinton, that the Wall Street Journal consortium showed that Bush got more votes in Florida, that race counted more than academics at U Michigan, keeps having to get corrected about what was found in Iraq...

Holy Moly!”

“As of course in UU's mind the only two options are Bush or Communist, there's not the capacity to deal with any more possibilities.”

“that one again UU, you ran out of ideas pretty quickly huh?”

“You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him; you must love him.”