Bush's Bad Budget

Over at National Review Online, American Enterprise Institute budget scholar Veronique de Rugy casts a cold eye on the Bush budget, writing:

The budget proposes to spend more than $2.5 trillion, and the White House never seems willing to stop Congress from adding even more money.

President Bush's previous budgets increased spending by a dramatic 33 percent in four years, defense spending increased by 44.7 percent while nondefense spending increased by 41.9 percent. The administration has been arguing that much of the increase in non-defense spending stemmed from higher homeland-security spending. However, the fact is that over half of all new spending in the past two years is from areas unrelated to defense and homeland security.

Whole thing here.

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. Report abuses.

  • sage||

    I can't believe any kissass over at NRO would say a bad thing about dubya. Someone must have hacked the site.

  • ||

    NRO criticizes certain administration policies all the time - the budget, immigration, Saudi Arabia...okay, that's all I can think of.

  • ||

    Blah, blah, the proposed budget is too big. I agree. Now, what is the proposed budget that would actually result in less spending.

    Hello? Anyone?

  • Franklin Harris||

    the budget, immigration, Saudi Arabia...okay, that's all I can think of.

    Iraq. As in not bombing it enough.

  • ||

    "President Bush's previous budgets increased spending by a dramatic 33 percent in four years, defense spending increased by 44.7 percent while nondefense spending increased by 41.9 percent."

    I'm not a math major, but there seems to be a problem here.

    Kurt, there was also NRO's criticism of the administration's response to the ongoing torture scandals. Apparently, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales are WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY to hard on those low-level troops responsible for all of those fraternity hijinks.

  • b-psycho||

    I don't know which is more pathetic: how sparingly so-called "conservative" columnists show any proof that they're conservative and not simply pro-republican, or how despite Bush's blatant charge-card-slut spending habits "progressives" act like he's a complete Scrooge.

  • ||

    joe, maybe those numbers come from White House accountants. It would certainly explain a lot.

  • ||

    The Bush Budget also drastically increases Medicare costs, just as the Baby Boomers retire. A 1% reduction in 18% of the Budget will do little to curd our deficit. Bush should not only address Social Security, but Medicare and that egregious attempt to buy the votes of geriatrics (read: drugs for old people).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement