BUSH NOT BIG SPENDER
I am no economist. Fact is the term “Economy” has horrific connotations of frugality and temperance in shopping, so I avoid it when ever possible. (for those of you without a sense of humor - it's a joke) Seriously, I am presenting a news article, then a rebuttal, then a snip from NRO. I guess the bottom line is GWB just can’t get a break, even when he deserves one.
McClatchy News recently published a ‘hit’ piece stating that GWB was the biggest spender since LBJ.
“…Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative research group, blamed a ravenous Congress that was eager to show constituents how generous it could be. (Republicans ran that Congress until January. Bush never vetoed a single GOP spending bill.)
The White House points out that, nearly four years ago, Bush vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009, and he's well on his way to achieving that goal. The fiscal 2004 deficit was a record $412.7 billion; the 2007 figure plunged to $163 billion.
But the deficit drop may be fleeting, experts say, since lawmakers are likely to extend many of Bush’s tax cuts, which expire by the end of 2010, and the imminent retirement of the baby boom generation will send Medicare and Social Security costs soaring in the years ahead.
Now, near the end of the seventh year of his presidency, Bush is positioning himself as a tough fiscal conservative. He says Congress is proposing to spend $22 billion more in fiscal 2008 than the $933 billion he requested for discretionary programs — and that the $22 billion extra would swell over five years to $205 billion.
Eventually, Bush said, “they’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.” And so, the president told an Arkansas audience earlier this month, people should brace for “what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington. “The Congress gets to propose and, if it doesn’t meet needs as far as I’m concerned, I get to veto,” he said. “And that’s precisely what I intend to do.”
Bush is getting tough on fiscal policy — after running up a record as the most profligate spender in at least 40 years….”
The White House points out that, nearly four years ago, Bush vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009, and he's well on his way to achieving that goal. The fiscal 2004 deficit was a record $412.7 billion; the 2007 figure plunged to $163 billion.
But the deficit drop may be fleeting, experts say, since lawmakers are likely to extend many of Bush’s tax cuts, which expire by the end of 2010, and the imminent retirement of the baby boom generation will send Medicare and Social Security costs soaring in the years ahead.
Now, near the end of the seventh year of his presidency, Bush is positioning himself as a tough fiscal conservative. He says Congress is proposing to spend $22 billion more in fiscal 2008 than the $933 billion he requested for discretionary programs — and that the $22 billion extra would swell over five years to $205 billion.
Eventually, Bush said, “they’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.” And so, the president told an Arkansas audience earlier this month, people should brace for “what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington. “The Congress gets to propose and, if it doesn’t meet needs as far as I’m concerned, I get to veto,” he said. “And that’s precisely what I intend to do.”
Bush is getting tough on fiscal policy — after running up a record as the most profligate spender in at least 40 years….”
The problem is the numbers aren’t being crunched properly. Investor’s Business Daily presented an entirely different side of things.
“…In the first six years of his term, including the Office of Management and Budget's most current estimate for 2007, Bush spent, on average, 20% of GDP.
Was that a lot? Not really. As the chart shows, it puts him in the middle of the presidential pack. Since Johnson took office in late 1963, spending as a share of GDP has averaged 20.4%. And, ironically, spending under LBJ was the lowest.
So rather than a "record" spender, as some claim, Bush is actually below average. Indeed, he's within statistical spitting distance of President Clinton, who on average spent 19.6% of GDP. This doesn't mean we're for spending. Far from it. We'd love to take a red pen and go through the budget, cutting unnecessary programs and even eliminating whole departments.
We're with the Heritage Foundation when it says "government should reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, reform the massive entitlements and fully fund America's national defense priorities."
What we don't like is a dishonest argument, which we feel this has become. Many on the right have criticized Bush for too much spending, at times rightly so. But this has been picked up by Democrats, who now style themselves as fiscal conservatives. They're not….”
Was that a lot? Not really. As the chart shows, it puts him in the middle of the presidential pack. Since Johnson took office in late 1963, spending as a share of GDP has averaged 20.4%. And, ironically, spending under LBJ was the lowest.
So rather than a "record" spender, as some claim, Bush is actually below average. Indeed, he's within statistical spitting distance of President Clinton, who on average spent 19.6% of GDP. This doesn't mean we're for spending. Far from it. We'd love to take a red pen and go through the budget, cutting unnecessary programs and even eliminating whole departments.
We're with the Heritage Foundation when it says "government should reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, reform the massive entitlements and fully fund America's national defense priorities."
What we don't like is a dishonest argument, which we feel this has become. Many on the right have criticized Bush for too much spending, at times rightly so. But this has been picked up by Democrats, who now style themselves as fiscal conservatives. They're not….”
If spending were so very out of control, why is the economy so good? Larry Kudlow examines the issue in NRO.
“…In other words, there are a lot of ways to gently nudge tax rates lower while broadening the tax base that would keep the Bush boom going well into the future.
The print and broadcast media do not give President Bush much credit for his economic policies. But somehow I have to wonder whether low unemployment, strong growth, negligible inflation, and record stock markets do not deserve just a bit of praise.
It is still the greatest story never told.”
The print and broadcast media do not give President Bush much credit for his economic policies. But somehow I have to wonder whether low unemployment, strong growth, negligible inflation, and record stock markets do not deserve just a bit of praise.
It is still the greatest story never told.”
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Populist, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.">
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
