Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
So says a McClatchy news report:
George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ."He's a big government guy," said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.
The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.
"He's a big spender," Keating said. "No question about it."
And not just on war stuff:
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, points to education spending. Adjusted for inflation, it's up 18 percent annually since 2001, thanks largely to Bush's No Child Left Behind act.The 2002 farm bill, he said, caused agriculture spending to double its 1990s levels.
Then there was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit -- the biggest single expansion in the program's history -- whose 10-year costs are estimated at more than $700 billion.
And the 2005 highway bill, which included thousands of "earmarks," or special local projects stuck into the legislation by individual lawmakers without review, cost $295 billion.
"He has presided over massive increases in almost every category ... a dramatic change of pace from most previous presidents," said Slivinski.
But here's the funny part: now that the Democrats control congress, after tripling the nation's debt, Bush is suddenly posing as a fiscal conservative and objecting to measly 2-3%% increases in discretionary spending:
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."
Yes, he actually said that. After cutting taxes and raising spending faster than any post-WW2 president and driving up the debt by several trillion dollars, he's now arguing that if we raise spending by 2%, it's gonna require tax increases to pay for it. Why didn't that $285 billion highway bill require an increase in taxes? Why didn't that $700 billion Medicare bill require an increase in taxes? Oh, right - because the Republicans were in charge then.
I'm waiting for young people - and by that I mean pretty much anyone still of working age - to get pissed off about this. If you're going to spend like a drunken sailor, you at least have to pay for it yourself and not pass it off to someone else. Bush took over a balanced budget and in the last 6 years, we have added nearly $3.5 trillion in debt. That debt is financed by selling bonds which we must then pay back, with interest, over the next 10-30 years.
In other words, Bush has handed us and our children a $3.5 trillion We Owe Them, which can only be paid for with tax increases in the future. There is one iron law of budgets, repeat it after me: If you are running deficits, there is no such thing as a tax cut; there is only a tax delay. To continue to increase spending without paying the taxes to cover it is the very height of irresponsibility. Oh, and that's not to mention that issuing all that debt has given foreign governments, China in particular, a multi-trillion dollar leverage point over us. If you ran a corporation that way, you would be in prison. Our government does this year after year and we return 90% of them to their jobs every two years. Wake up, America. You're being screwed and they aren't using any lube.
Comments
"Bush took over a balanced budget and in the last 6 years, we have added nearly $3.5 trillion in debt."
Actually, Bush took over a budget surplus.
Posted by: SLC | October 30, 2007 9:31 AM
I think most of Bush's lack of understanding of even basic economics comes from his silver-spoon upbringing. He has never had to worry about making his personal budget balance. Even as an (cough, cough) oil executive, his family and their friends would bail him out of all his fiscal trouble.
With that as his only experience, he probably thinks that some miracle will occur to bail us all out.
Posted by: Mobius | October 30, 2007 9:31 AM
"Bush took over a balanced budget and in the last 6 years, we have added nearly $3.5 trillion in debt. That debt is financed by selling bonds which we must then pay back, with interest, over the next 10-30 years."
Bush also inherited low inflation, low interest rates and a strong dollar.
It's taken him longer to piss those away than it did the budget surplus but he's getting there.
When Bush took office, the Australian dollar was worth around 50 US cents, now its worth over 90.
Those high oil prices you're hearing about are less to do with a rise in the price of oil measured against world currencies as a whole than a side-effect of the collapsing US dollar.
The budget deficit is being financed by borrowing from foreigners. Those foreigners have taken massive capital losses over the past several years but continue to pump money into the US for various reasons. (E.g. the Saudis pump lots of their oil revenue into US government debt because they're dependant on US goodwill to help them maintain power.)
At some point, the foreigner lenders will wise up, the money spigot will be turned off and the US will have to start paying its own way again.
I hope you're all looking forward to return to double digit inflation and interest rates and $200 a barrel oil.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 30, 2007 10:13 AM
I think Bush understands economics just fine. He just doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. He's filthy stinking rich (with emphasis on the filthy and stinking) and that won't change even if the economy collapses. The rest of the republicans know that the democrats will have to raise taxes to keep the government from falling apart and the republicans can rely on their patented framing of democrats as "tax-and-spend liberals" to win back the majority and make the mess all over again. Not that the dems are any less corrupt or venal. The dems simply are willing to throw the little people some scraps now and then while the republicans deny them even the crumbs from their plates.
Posted by: c-serpent | October 30, 2007 10:19 AM
Its not a matter of personal understanding; its politics. He was profligate for the first 6 years because the republicans were in office and all that money was buying him patronage and enriching those social groups that consistently vote R every election. Now that the Dems hold office he's starting the work of dropping the bill for it on them; they're the big spenders, your honor, we poor republicans have been held hostage by their spendthrift ways. I tried to stop them even! You can bet that's what the message will be from republican candidates in the next congressional elections.
Unfortunately, those dolts in Congress don't seem to understand what he's doing, and lack the political will to ram what they want down his throat. He's the most unpopular president in the last 30 or 40 years, and they're letting him stonewall them and make them look incompetent because they don't want to "play rough". What they need to be doing right now is sitting their republican colleagues down and explaining to them how their districts won't be getting a single cent worth of federal monies for the next decade unless they play ball. Instead of leaking info regarding Republican sexual hypocrisy to the media or the cops, they need to be using the threat of doing that to hold those smarmy jerks over the legislative barrel. That's what politics is, not a silly press conference or some damn High School student council meeting, but a brawl. People are dying right now because of they think playing nice will serve them better electorally.
Posted by: Julian | October 30, 2007 10:21 AM
The Republicans live by the Mencken adage:
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
The Republicans will spend the next year portraying the Democrats as tax and spend, as soft on terror, as fiscally irresponsible, etc., and millions of morons will buy into it and spout their bullshyte platitudes as if they were truthful and accurate.
This morning I heard on "Truth radio" that the US will have troops in the Middle East for the next 25-50 years. The screaming head then claimed that liberals will "gasp with shock and horror" at this statement. He went on to claim that this was a well known development before the war in Iraq and that anyone who claims otherwise is naive, lying, or stupid (emphasizing the liberal = stupid). The problem with this is, 5 years ago, liberals who were against the war stated quite clearly that this would lead to a US military presence there for the next 25-50 years; conservative supporters of the war claimed that this was insanity! According to them the troops would be met with cheering crowds and flowers in the streets; we would have our troops home within a year or two at most.
The truly pathetic thing is, this will be the new frame regarding the war. Liberals will be those foolish people who were surprised we will have to keep troops there, silly naive liberals, foolish peace-niks, etc., and the average American moron will believe it!
Every time I turn on one of those "talk" stations, a little bit of my faith in our system dies ...
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 30, 2007 10:50 AM
Ian Gould, who has only a Lou Dobbs' level of economic understanding, wrote:
I hope you're all looking forward to return to double digit inflation and interest rates and $200 a barrel oil.
First, double-digit inflation will not and cannot happen unless the Fed decides to let it happen. Period. Go read up on monetary policy and the Fed before suggesting that anything else can cause massive inflation.
Second, "foreign leaders" buy U.S. government securities because they're the most reliable investments on Earth. The U.S. government has never defaulted, and as long as it does not, these will be sought after. Granted, a weak U.S. economy could lead to greater hesitancy to purchase them, which could cause interest rates on them to rise (because it would take a higher interest rate to persuade people to buy them).
Third, Ian Gould complains that it takes foreigners to finance our deficit, but he wants a strong dollar. You an't have it both ways, man. If we have a strong dollar, we'll have more imports than exports (a strong dollar makes other countries' stuff cheap for us, but our stuff more expensive for them). When we send that much money to China, etc., they use it to finance our deficit by buying government securities. They don't really have much choice--we aren't producing enough exports they want to have them send that money back through purchases.
Finally, strong dollar/weak dollar analysis is mumbo jumbo. If you want to support exports, you want a weak dollar. Right now Canadians are increasing their U.S. purchases because the looney has gained strength against the U.S. dollar. If you want a strong dollar, you'll have to accept fewer exports and massive imports.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 30, 2007 11:01 AM
Re Gould and Hanley:
According to the CIA World Factbook, the US has more than 20% of the external debt in the world...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html
... and the largest debtors are Japan and China. While Hanley is correct when he wrote...
...there is also the problem that politics could potentially lead to an unfriendly government like China trying to mess with our economy by doing a mass sell-off of the US debt that it holds. Here's an article by the Fed Reserve chair on this topic:
http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20060221-22.html
Posted by: doctorgoo | October 30, 2007 12:32 PM
After Bush's latest stint, I do want to go around town asking everyone I meet: "You aren't buying this BS are you?"
http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ncl=1122814411&hl=en&topic=n
Posted by: daenku32 | October 30, 2007 2:17 PM
doctorgoo: There is little China could do to the US economy by selling off debt, its a very weak tool.
As far as Bush goes, its quite simple. He is for big (things I want) government and against big (things I don't want) government. In this respect he is no different to the democrats, except that he is also a hippocrite (which is a big point).
Posted by: James | October 31, 2007 1:20 AM
"Ian Gould, who has only a Lou Dobbs' level of economic understanding..."
So where did Lou get his degree and how long did he work as a professional economist?
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 31, 2007 4:41 AM
"First, double-digit inflation will not and cannot happen unless the Fed decides to let it happen. Period. Go read up on monetary policy and the Fed before suggesting that anything else can cause massive inflation."
Actually the Fed only controls inflation indirectly via its control of interest rates. It doesn't set interest rates in a vacuum as you obviously want to believe - if the foreign buyers stay away from the bond auctions and start selling off their existing debt holdings, the Fed will need to raise rates.
"Second, "foreign leaders" buy U.S. government securities because they're the most reliable investments on Earth. The U.S. government has never defaulted, and as long as it does not, these will be sought after. Granted, a weak U.S. economy could lead to greater hesitancy to purchase them, which could cause interest rates on them to rise (because it would take a higher interest rate to persuade people to buy them)."
I didn't refer to foreign "leaders" I referred to foreign lenders - a subtle distinction I know. You are correct that US has never defaulted on its debt - they just allowed inflation to erode the real value of the debt, as in the dying days of Bretton Woods. Additionally for msot of the history of the US, exchange rates were fixed meaning investors in US public debt only had to worry about sovereign default. Now they also have to worry abotu exchange rate risk - and as I've pointed out, they've been taking a beating on the exchange rate for years.
"Third, Ian Gould complains that it takes foreigners to finance our deficit, but he wants a strong dollar. You an't have it both ways, man. If we have a strong dollar, we'll have more imports than exports (a strong dollar makes other countries' stuff cheap for us, but our stuff more expensive for them)."
No actually what I want is a really cheap dollar - because I'm a foreigner who makes his living importing from the US. What I believe is in the best interests of the US (a quite different proposition) is a stable US dollar and a manageable current account deficit.
US private demand is excessive - and is driven by huge unfunded government spending which spills over into higher profits and higher incomes. All of which is very nice while it lasts.
A country's current account deficit and public debt can't grow as a percentage of GDP indefinitely. If the US doesn't correct these imbalances, by raising taxes and constraining growth in government spending to less than the rate of GDP growth, the markets will.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 31, 2007 4:56 AM
"If you want to support exports, you want a weak dollar. "
Right because it's obviously absurd to suggest that any country, like say China, could increase exports with a pegged or appreciating currency.
As an Australian who was studying economics during the late 1980's when we were going through our own current account crisis, I can assure you that the supposed automatic link between exports and the currency level is far less predictable and reliable than right wing market ideologues like to believe.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 31, 2007 5:01 AM
The dollar is weak because the market is flooded with them. Bush is paying for the war by simply printing more money. More money printed means each dollar has less and less value. The US economy is nothing but a fiat money house of cards...with the wheels coming off.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | October 31, 2007 7:20 PM