George W. Bush, Big Spender?
In the Wall Street Journal today, Kimberley Strassel has an excellent interview with our prior president, George W. Bush.
The interview hits on many fascinating points, and really gives you a sense of Bush-the-man (and his affinity to crocs, the footwear of middle aged women who garden and young hippies who don't). I thought the most interesting part of Strassel's interview was Bush's defense of his fiscal record. A common criticism of Bush, especially among conservatives, is that he was a big spender and, therefore, deviated from the prudent principles of small government conservatism--that he's part of the reason why tea party folks and independents have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party, the establishment, and so on and so forth.
Well here is his defense:
One perception the president is determined to shift is that of his spending record. "Decision Points" contains one graphic: a table comparing, among other things, President Bush's average spending-to-GDP (19.6%) to that of Bill Clinton (19.8%), Bush 41 (21.9%), and Reagan (22.4%). It also shows that his deficit-to-GDP was 2%—half that of Bush 41 and Reagan.
I come armed with a slew of spending questions. Why didn't he veto more GOP spending bills? Why didn't he use the war as a reason to cut back on domestic spending? But he shuts me down by referring to the chart. I point out that, chart or no, there is a perception he oversaw fiscal profligacy.
"Yes, there is," he concedes. "I think the Medicare reform caused certain conservative writers to say 'Bush has been fiscally irresponsible.' And they did not look at the facts. And the facts are that we have a very solid fiscal record"—despite spending "a lot of money" on war, homeland security, and Hurricane Katrina.
But what about 2003 Medicare reform, which saw Republicans add a major new prescription drug entitlement? He rejects the premise of the question. "The entitlement already existed, and the entitlement was Medicare. And that's the threshold question—should we have Medicare? If the answer is no, my attitude is fine, go debate it. If the answer is yes, then let's modernize it." The prescription-drug program is about allowing Medicare to give seniors a "$15 drug in order to prevent a $30,000 operation that your taxpayer money would be committed to paying."
Does Bush make a good case for himself? Is he really a pragmatic realist, as his statements above could lead one to believe?
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
I have read many times that Dubya spent more on non-defense budget items than any president since LBJ. If this is untrue but Bush's administration allowed that understanding to settle in among conservatives, they didn't grasp that perception is reality in today's hyper-media climate. The choice of the sweating, robotic Scott McClellan as press secretary argues that Bush didn't care what people thought about his administration or its policies in the second term. McClellan always looked like someone behind pulled a string in his back that connected to a cud that delivered predigested answers.
Jul '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
Discretionary spending rose by 96% during Bush's administration. When he took office, the feds spent $17,600 per person in the United States. When he left office, that figure was $32,000.
If he had simply held discretionary spending flat - or at the rate of inflation - we'd be looking at a far smaller national debt and much more manageable debt service.
Jul '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
Comparing government spending with GDP is a nice exercise.
Here's Veronique de Rugy back in 2003.
Here she is again in 2009 with a summary of Bush's budgets.
Oct '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
IMO, Bush's position is that of the liberal establishment. The liberal establishment sees government as a positive force in society. Therefore, to a Republican liberal like Bush, the ratio of government spending to GDP remaining relatively flat during economic growth is normative. As the whole pie grows, "government" and it's positive effects would necessarily grow to keep up with the "demand" for "government services". A true conservative would say that a flat curve with respect to spending vs GDP during a time of economic growth represents an expansion of government and a diversion of wealth from the individuals in the society, resulting in a drag on the general economy due to capital flowing into government programs instead of the market where greater wealth can be created, resulting in a net loss to society.
Edited on Nov 10, 2010 at 7:31amJul '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
If a President has to veto spending bills put forth by a congress with his party in the majority, then a truly dysfunctional situation exists. The question is unrealistic. As for using the war as a reason to cut back on domestic spending: what, it wasn't unpopular enough? Was LBJ ever asked that question?
I'm sorry, but if Ms. Strassel had an excellent interview, this part of it must have been the exception.
Bush did expend political capital proposing changes in non-discretionary spending, ie, Social Security Reform. He got his head handed to him, and was accused of "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor". He tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; House Democrats threw hissy fits and lied about the financial health of these institutions.
Feh, Ms. Strassel! Feh!
Jul '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
Michael Tee: Thank you for the link to Ms. de Rugy's work. If you click through to the working paper, and scroll down to Table 1, and examine the column titled "Deficit" (receipts - outlays) you'll note a rise to 2004, then a falling off until 2008, a sign of an economy growing faster than its Federal budget obligations.
As for 2008, class, who can tell me what occurred in 2007 that might have had an effect? Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?
Jul '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
Good Berean: IMO, Bush's position is that of the liberal establishment. The liberal establishment sees government as a positive force in society. Therefore, to a Republican liberal like Bush, the ratio of government spending to GDP remaining relatively flat during economic growth is normative. As the whole pie grows, "government" and it's positive effects would necessarily grow to keep up with the "demand" for "government services". A true conservative would say that a flat curve with respect to spending vs GDP during a time of economic growth represents an expansion of government and a diversion of wealth from the individuals in the society, resulting in a drag on the general economy due to capital flowing into government programs instead of the market where greater wealth can be created, resulting in a net loss to society. · Nov 10 at 7:29am
Edited on Nov 10 at 07:31 am
Well said. I knew the instant I heard the phrase "Compassionate Conservatism" that the guy was going to be a spender.
As for Trepidis' defense that Bush was helpless in the face of Congress, the fact is he never really tried.
Sep '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
Does Ms. de Rugy eerily resemble Ms. Rand, or what?
Hmm...
Edited on Nov 10, 2010 at 9:24amJul '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
Tripedis Canis: Michael Tee: Thank you for the link to Ms. de Rugy's work. If you click through to the working paper, and scroll down to Table 1, and examine the column titled "Deficit" (receipts - outlays) you'll note a rise to 2004, then a falling off until 2008, a sign of an economy growing faster than its Federal budget obligations.
As for 2008, class, who can tell me what occurred in 2007 that might have had an effect? Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller? · Nov 10 at 7:57am
First, I can't believe I bought your premise. Deficits are bad no matter what right now. The fact that they went down for a bit is no consolation. Being less bad does not equal being good.
2008 was the farce that was the Federal TARP, which was a result of the economy growing faster than Federal budget obligations due to the distorted housing market, amongst other things.
Edited on Nov 10, 2010 at 11:55amAug '10
Re: George W. Bush, Big Spender?
1) The fact that the government doesn't cough up $15 for a drug doesn't mean in every case that some other insurance, or even the patient himeslf, won't.
2) The fact that a patient lacks a $15 drug doesn't mean in every case that a $30,000 operation will be required.
It may very well be true, then, that the government will have to pay for a $15 drug way more than 2,000 times in order to prevent a single $30,000 operation.