Reason Magazine

Print|Email|Single Page

Bush the Budget Buster

When it comes to spending, George W. Bush is no Reagan. Hell, he's not even

(Page 2 of 2)

For instance, by cutting marginal income tax rates, an administration can substantially reduce the number of people unemployed and hence reduce entitlement payments. Also, the president can change the underlying laws that define how and to whom the money is distributed. President Reagan's first budget plan promised to "overhaul the nation's overgrown $350 billion entitlements system"; he also proposed numerous spending reductions to Medicare and Medicaid and was able to make some modest reforms to slow program growth rates. Those are some of the reasons why the total increase in mandatory spending during Reagan's first five years was a relatively paltry 12.4 percent. In 1996, President Clinton signed off on vigorous welfare reforms. Chief among them were the strong incentives for welfare recipient to get jobs, which benefited all Americans in the form of lower spending on welfare. The economic boom of the Clinton years—induced in part by large capital gains tax cuts—also worked to decrease entitlement spending.

President Bush seems intent on following the LBJ model by making entitlement spending even more overgrown. In a fiscally reckless act, Congress and President Bush enacted the $550 billion (over 10 years) drug bill even though the budget is deep into deficit and Medicare already has a huge financing shortfall. Not only is the new drug program the biggest expansion in Medicare since its inception, it's virtually certain that the $550 billion price tag is a low-ball estimate. Despite the massive cost, some on Capitol Hill now want to expand these entitlements in the name of Katrina victims.

To date, the Bush administration has a disjointed, two-track budget policy. It has favored letting Americans keep more of their money via tax cuts while steadily building up the welfare state via unrestrained spending. Over time, that that strategy can't work. As Milton Friedman and others have long argued, the size of government is found in its total spending and, ultimately, spending is a taxpayer issue. Higher spending and resulting deficits create a constant threat of higher taxes. It's no surprise that not just Democrats but even moderate Republicans are now arguing that Bush's recent tax cuts be allowed to expire.

To be sure, Congress shares the blame for runaway spending in the past five years. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his tenure in office. To the contrary, he has signed every bill crossing his desk, including huge education, farm subsidy, and transportation bills. He has made only the most feeble efforts to rein in pork-barrel spending or offset new programs with cuts in existing ones.

What makes this all the more frustrating is that Bush, unlike Reagan and Clinton, faces a Congress that is controlled by his own party, which claims to be dedicated to smaller, more efficient government. Yet Bush has shown no leadership on spending reform—and Republicans have rebuffed even the mildest criticisms of their spendthrift ways. It seems incontestable that we should conclude that the country's purse is worse off when Republicans are in power.

[Editor's Note: The original version of this story contained an incorrect estimate of Bush 43's real discretionary spending in the defense and non-defense categories. The original version stated that Bush had increased total real discretionary spending over five years by 35.2 percent, including a 30.2 percent increase in non-defense spending and a 30.8 percent increase in defense spending. The correct estimated figures are 35.8 percent for total real discretionary spending, 27.9 percent for non-defense spending, and 44.5 percent for defense spending.]

Page: 12

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 4:37PM

George Bush: A Free Market Capitalist? | The Amanda Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…have some sway?) he also vetoed fewer bills than any president since Warren G. Harding. According to Reason Magazine, between 2000-2005 the Department of Education’s budget had grown by “ a stunning 79.9%.”  This was due in part to Bush’s beloved No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which dramatically increased the amount of spending and government authority over our public education system. …

Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 6:43AM

E.J. Dionne Discovers Strange Species That Apparently Doesn’t Like Always-Expanding links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). We’re not talking about ( shudder) closing down the Department of Education here. We’re talking about maybe not increasing its budget by 80 percent in just five years. That really is how far we’ve allowed the goalposts to be moved. (And don’t even get me started about states doublingtheir budgets between 2002-2007, a brazen…

Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 2:32PM

E.J. Dionne Discovers Strange Species That Apparently Doesn’t Like Always-Expanding links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). We’re not talking about ( shudder) closing down the Department of Education here. We’re talking about maybe not increasing its budget by 80 percent in just five years. That really is how far we’ve allowed the goalposts to be moved. (And don’t even get me started about states doublingtheir budgets between 2002-2007, a brazen…

nfl premier jerseys|11.6.10 @ 5:49AM|

What you had mentioned is quite reasonable! Beautifully written article sir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nfl premier jerseys
Dallas Cowboys premier jerseys

nfl youth jerseys|5.16.11 @ 4:53AM|

when i was young, i always want to own a youth nfl jerseys. But my father told me,"my kids, you are too young to waering it. Unless you are 18 year old, i will not buy that for you". Finally, that's becoming a pity in my mind even if i am grown up. Now, as the dad of two children, i cannot made my kids disappointed just like their grandfather made me upset. Last sunday, when i go through some website online, I occasionally found this great website, professionally providing nfl youth jerseys for some years. That's made me so excited. The price is so affordable, at the first time, i got some specious, "in such low price, could i got a high quality jersey?" or"thes jerseys are just for one time wearing?". No matter what, the prices is reall attractive. Then, I decided to have try. The result is made me absolutely satisfied. "Great nfl youth jerseys I have to say. "Also great service and fast delivery". Everything is beyond my excpection.

|11.4.11 @ 11:44PM|

Murong Yun did not want to have too much common ground with him, so he will not own more of the above any economic exchange, put on a Ku Gualian said: "You got it wrong, I am poorer than you. This concert will kill people, ah! Since we are Xiongdi Huo, so I will not tell lies, cheap nike air max I have to carry a lot of bank debt was purchased two VIP tickets for first class and I was east of the city credit card all banks are Banqi of a month, I have been shattering, very painful ah! "
Lu helicopter was very surprised and said: "I listen to you but the wealthy out of legend Oh!"
Murong Yun was pretending to smile: "I did the second generation is nike air max cheap negative, but the negative is negative, the negative words only. As long as you are willing to join the ranks of the negative second generation now, these banks lowered the threshold for credit card , but still pay back the money when you die you have to, I have troubled dead. "
"Would not it? I think you are beautiful fiancee is not only one long and very understanding." Lu said helicopter doubt."You never heard of a woman is like a car, the more beautiful the woman, the higher the maintenance costs it?" Murong Yun was shaking his head and said: "look and feel really enjoyed the above, take out is also very face, but heart pain only you know. car to

Leave a Comment

More Articles by Nick Gillespie

More Articles by Veronique de Rugy

Related Articles (Farm Subsidies, Politics, Congress, Transportation, Welfare)

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245