-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Barack Obama will be the biggest spender ever. But it’s been hard for the Republican Party to criticize him, since the GOP spent most of the last decade borrowing money wildly to throw a big government party. My Cato Institute colleague Chris Edwards looks at the final CBO numbers:
The Congressional Budget Office has released final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009. The numbers allow us to take a last look at the Bush administration’s record on spending from a statistical point of view.
The following three charts show annual average real (or constant dollar) outlays during the tenures of recent presidents. Presidents were in office for either 4 or 8 budget years, except JFK (3 years), LBJ (5 years), Nixon (6 years), and Ford (2 years).
President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bailouts enacted under his watch. (For FY2009, $154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie and Freddie).
Spending in Bush’s first year (FY2001) was $1.863 trillion, thus he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending, which includes defense, domestic, entitlements, and interest. Even without TARP and Fannie/Freddie, spending was up a huge 70 percent under Bush over eight years. By contrast, total spending under eight years of President Clinton increased just 32 percent. These are the overall increases in nominal dollars.
Now let’s look at the real annual averages. Figure 1 shows the average increase in total spending under recent presidents. Bush II was the biggest spender since LBJ. His spending increases were far larger than the three prior presidents.
It doesn’t matter how you slice it—with or without military outlays, interest, etc. President George W. Bush and the Republican congressional majority looked and acted like Democrats. If the GOP is to stage a comeback, Republicans must be held accountable for past misbehavior and made to understand that their political survival depends on behaving differently this time. The last thing we will need after the Obama years is another period of rule by big government Republicans.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/31/final-returns-for-bush-the-big
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Current Wisdom
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Roy| 12.31.09 @ 3:49PM
You mean: " 'President Bush'[a common shorthand for the Congress that was in office during the Bush administration, which was never much less than 50% Democrats] spent more than you or I would have", not "looked and acted like Democrats".
83 percent in 8 years? 10 percent a year? DEMOCRATS?
Imagine there were no Republicans in office right now. Cap & tax, Obamacare with the full welfare option and of course stimulus 2, 3, 4 and 10 have all passed.
Think the budget has gone up by 10%? ROFL!!!!
Paul McGrath| 12.31.09 @ 4:19PM
Don't kid yourself, Roy. The spending under Bush was the worst in American history to that point, and worse, it destroyed any claims Republicans may have had as being fiscally responsible. Bush single-handedly destroyed the Republican party and his irresponsible spending led directly to the thing currently residing in the White House.
Not to mention, his father with his renege of the "read my lips" pledge led directly to Clinton.
God, the damage this family has done in the name of Republicanism.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 12.31.09 @ 5:17PM
...the damage this family has done in the name of Republicanism.
It's not just the Bushes, but the proliferation of RINOs in the Republican Party as well.
Paul McGrath| 12.31.09 @ 6:17PM
Okay, Black Jacques, but there is only one president of the United States at a time, and both Bushes were clearly in the RINO camp.
Believe me, there were RINOs in the Republican party in the Reagan years; maybe more than now. But Reagan, as head of the Republican party and as president--and as a conservative--made them toe the line.
God, the opportunity lost almost makes me weep. We had a Republican senate, a Republican house, and a Republican president in 2000. And Bush immediately became Lyndon Johnson.
Pingback| 12.31.09 @ 6:46PM
Year End Reality Check « Moonbat Patrol links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Cris Angelini | 12.31.09 @ 8:36PM
It is troubling, however, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security(an entirely new government agency) was a tremendous cost which no cost summation ever addresses. It is unfair to saddle Bush with this as a domestic spending cost.
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 9:16AM
New tax credits for 2009 returns | My Efficient Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 10:18AM
Who is more energy efficient? BUSH or GORE? | My Efficient Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 1.1.10 @ 12:42PM
Can't wait for Jeb to roll out his 2012 campaign.
Jeff Perren | 1.1.10 @ 3:12PM
"It's not just the Bushes..." nor the Democrats, nor the Republicans in Congress.
It's the fault of the American people who tolerated such behavior for far too long and continued to vote the leadership into office year after year.
Judy| 1.1.10 @ 3:51PM
One can spin anything so that one does not believe their own lying eyes. Also, though I am no expert, I thought Congress spent the money. Why does this article not separate what was spent after Dems took Congress? Also, why does it not separate what was spent in response to 9/11?
Clinton always gets credit for the cost savings enacted by the Gingrich led House. This article illustrates why we have a dumbed down citizenry. You have to be a "Philadelphia lawyer" to determine who is spinning, who is outright lying, and who is telling the unvarnished truth.
It seems to me that Bush is more guilty of not vetoing than of instigating spending as Obama does.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.1.10 @ 4:19PM
Well, Doug, your colleague Chris Edwards has produced a lousy paper. Nominal dollar figures are irrelevant - they are distorted by inflation. (Nonetheless, his point is valid. Bush was indeed the most irresponsible spender since LBJ.)
$1.863 trillion in 2001 dollars is equal to $2.28 trillion in 2009 dollars. From FY2001 to FY2009, spending grew by 54.47% - a big figure, but not 83%.
Nonetheless, like I wrote above, Edwards is right on one score: that Bush was a fiscally irresponsible president. And he can't use the defense budget as an excuse, because the defense spending increase he implemented accounts for only a minority of the aggregate budget hike he orchestrated. His last defense budget was a paltry $512 bn. Less than 1/7th of the total budget.
Bush's profligate domestic spending (incl. spending on wars of country-building, spending on prescription drugs, farm subsidies, the ED's budget and the DOT's budget) has buried American children under a mountain of debt.
besthdsoft | 1.2.10 @ 9:04PM
Thank you so much for this post, it was very insightful!
------------------------------------
rip blu ray || rip blu ray for mac
Peter Grynch| 1.3.10 @ 12:11AM
Much as I love the great state of Texas, I doubt I will ever vote for another Texan for President.
LBJ was bad, Bush 41 threw away the REagan Revolution, and Bush 43 ripped the heart out of the fical conservative movement and handed Washington to the socialists.