Bush The Big Spender? Check Again

[Terri]

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
October 25, 2007

Budget Policy: An oft-heard criticism leveled at President Bush is that he's a "record spender." And because it's repeated by those at both ends of the political spectrum, it sounds right. But that doesn't mean it is right.

Bush is "arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ," says a story from McClatchy Newspapers on the president's fiscal record. Pretty tough words, given that LBJ conducted both a war in Vietnam and a War on Poverty simultaneously, racking up huge gains in spending over his term and a half in office.

The McClatchy piece says discretionary spending under Bush has risen an inflation-adjusted 5.3% in his first six years, outstripping the 4.6% under Johnson — and way above President Reagan's meager 1.9%. By "almost any yardstick," the article continues, Bush "generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors."

More (http://www.ibdeditorials.co m/IBDArticles.aspx?id= 278203953648874)

[FEChancellor]

Bush administration tarred by a slanted story in the MSM for the 39487205372057th time. Glad to see Investor's Business Daily provide the context and information necessary for a truthful and complete analysis.

[florida]

This is probably true whether we Republicans want to admit it or not our Knight (GWB) Medicare Drug Benefit probably made up most of the spending! GWB will never get a medal for a more conservative administration in regards to spending!

[Terri]

We may not like what has been spent or what it was spent on but that's not the point of this article.

The effect of today's spending on the economy is not as great as it as liberals, and some conservatives, pretend it is and that is what the writer is pointing out.

[McGrats]

If you think they are, the following AP headline from this week will make you think again: "Senate Reverses Bush's Budget Cuts." Got it? Under our Constitution, Congress decides spending, not the president. That's Government 101, elementary civics.

Yup... that's where the rubber hits the road. But I still can't accept Bush's "average" spending as acceptable. He should have taken a leadership position and curtailed spending wherever possible, not open new entitlements. Which brings us to: As GAO chief David Walker has noted, $50.5 trillion in entitlement spending looms in the next few decades — with no way to pay for it.

And yes, I agree Bush attempted to begin addressing the issue, but in such a weak, ineffective manner it was for naught.

:(

[makamends]

Is GDP a good way to view what's happening? The government is the biggest business in this country making a massive contribution to GDP. What happens when we reach a point where everything is delivered by the government?

[Think About It]

This article is Very Interesting!!!!!!!!! !!!!! Of course George W gets blamed for every thing. Our do-nothing congress of Dimocrats and Whinocrats continue to hide billions of dollars in funds earmarked for under-the-table deals with their long term special interests (i.e. Murtha, Stevens, Clinton, Kenedy, Specter, etc.), and the only one the media can blame is Geroge W who is trying to protect us another attack by Islamic terrorists (who were given the opportunity to prepare for the 9/11 attack by Bill and Hillary's administration).

[Whitetop]

What happens when we reach a point where everything is delivered by the government? We will have become a communist state; something the liberals are working toward.

Bush could have used his veto power long before this budget year. The bridge to nowhere is a good example. (I understand the bridge will never be built so what happens to the money budgeted for it? I have no answer for that but it should be taken out of the spending and given back to the people.)

The Part D drug entitlement should have been vetoed. Like anything the government gets involved in the costs will soon far exceed the projected spending.

[Terri]

Bush could have used his veto power long before this budget year. The bridge to nowhere is a good example. (I understand the bridge will never be built so what happens to the money budgeted for it? I have no answer for that but it should be taken out of the spending and given back to the people.)
I agree that these huge budget bills should have been vetoed, multiple times if necessary, but we must realize a president vetoes the entire thing, including money for the military, when he vetoes the bill. I suspect that maybe be why there weren't more vetoes of the omnibus budget bills.

[makamends]

but we must realize a president vetoes the entire thing, including money for the military,

Attaching the "bridge to nowhere" is blackmail anyway you look at it. Caving into blackmailers produces the same result as negotiating with terrorists which our President says he won't do. That is the correct stance. The POTUS should do what's right and allow the people to come onto Congress like a ton of bricks to get troop funding or whatever. Some think there should be line item veto. That's not what the Founders intended, having a President muck about in a bill, as near as I can tell. Too much Executive power there. Call the blackmailers out Mr. President. Be assured that I'll be figuratively holding on to Mitch McConnell's or John Yarmuth's tie to get troops some bullets. Your amnesty fiasco is your proof. ;)

[schillerbjr]

It is too bad President Bush cannot "VETO" the
Stalinist/Marxist/Lenninist Democrats out of
Congress!! These Democrats of today are "SCARY"!!

[Whitetop]

As I recall the bridge to nowhere was in the transportation bill and there was no military spending attached. That was one of the things that made people mad was he didn't veto the transportation bill with that pork project in it.

Just my recollection and I could be wrong.