Ross Douthat manfully tries to defend the Bush administration's record on
spending from Peter Robinson, John Cogan, and Glenn Hubbard. Douthat's strongest argument is that
domestic discretionary spending has only increased somewhat as a
percentage of GDP and, at 3.6 percent, is still low by the bloated
post-Great Society '70s standards. Some of Bush's critics
exaggerate his spending binges. But I think this argument works
better as a criticism of Bush's most unhinged detractors, not as a
defense of the Bush spending record.
First, I'm not sure I would give the president a cookie for not
expanding the welfare state as much as the Great Society liberals
and their Nixonian enablers (especially since in other areas, like
the national debt-to-GDP ratio and the unfunded liabilities of the
major entitlements programs, the comparison isn't entirely
favorable). More importantly, since Bush requested and received
both a Medicare prescription drug entitlement and a war in Iraq,
just tallying domestic discretionary spending stacks the deck in
the administration's favor. But not counting homeland security
spending, domestic discretionary spending rose 40 percent between
2001 and 2006. That's more than it increased under all eight years
of Bill Clinton's presidency (39 percent) and at a faster annual
rate (7 percent versus 4.2 percent). That is also faster than the
rate of inflation.
Bush's spending record has improved since he began fighting a
Democratic Congress instead of accomodating a Republican one. If he
had succeeded at Social Security reform rather than (or even in
addition to) passing the prescription drug benefit, the picture
would look different. But a successful reformist conservatism will
probably reject Bush's fiscal record rather than try to
rehabilitate it.
topics:
Bill Clinton, Entitlements, Social Security, Iraq, Conservatism, Medicare
