“Small gub’mint conservatives”? BUNK. To any alcohol-swilling sailors who may read this blog, I truly mean NO OFFENSE when I say President Bush spends our tax dollars like you guys do when you hit the beaches, but the truth is the truth…
From McClatchy Washington Bureau:
Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ
By David Lightman
WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he’s arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.
“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.
The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.
“He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”
Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.
When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.
That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.
Discretionary spending went up in Bush’s first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.
Defense spending is the big driver — but hardly the only one.
Under Bush it’s grown on average by 5.7 percent a year. Under LBJ — who had a war to fund, too — it rose by 4.9 percent a year. Both numbers are adjusted for inflation. …”
(Snip!)
“… Homeland security spending also has soared, to about $31 billion last year, triple the pre-9/11 number. …”
‘Scuse me — HOLD UP. Sorry to interrupt here, but allow me to remind you there was NO “Department Of Homeland Security” before President Bush established it. Come to think of it, there wasn’t even a “Transportation Safety Administration” before President Bush created it. Two HUGE “gub’mint” beaurocracies, built courtesy of YOUR Republican President and YOUR Republican Congress (at the time). And to think, these guys are dropping President Ronald Reagan’s name at every possible moment when they’re not whining about Her Royal Highness, Queen Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Another “snip”:
“… Now, near the end of the seventh year of his presidency, Bush is positioning himself as a tough fiscal conservative.
He says Congress is proposing to spend $22 billion more in fiscal 2008 than the $933 billion he requested for discretionary programs — and that the $22 billion extra would swell over five years to $205 billion.
Eventually, Bush said, “they’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.”
And so, the president told an Arkansas audience earlier this month, people should brace for “what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington.
“The Congress gets to propose and, if it doesn’t meet needs as far as I’m concerned, I get to veto,” he said. “And that’s precisely what I intend to do.”
Bush is getting tough on fiscal policy — after running up a record as the most profligate spender in at least 40 years.
“The spending did happen,” said Keating, “and a lot of it shouldn’t have happened.”
Yeah, yeah, we’ve heard it all before: “Watch out for the Democrats — they like big government.” I say watch out for BOTH parties — they’ve a proven track record for spending OUR money like drunken sailors (again — NO offense to drunken sailors) and I’m SICK of it, BUT…
Let us not fall for this “small gub’mint Conservative Republican” crappola ever again. Let us not forget the TRUTH in 2008, friends.
***
Thank you to Liberty Street for quoting this post…
Other bloggers weigh in (H/T to MemeOrandum): Captain’s Quarters (Right); Hot Air (Far Right); The Carpetbagger Report (Left); The Heretik (Left)
Loading ...
1:22 pm on October 24th, 2007 1
[...] at Balloon Juice the Heretik and the Gun Toting Liberal. H/t [...]
2:20 pm on October 24th, 2007 2
Dept. of Homeland Security did not exist before but was spawned out of FEMA which did exist, and is now a part of Homeland Security. I believe the TSA is also part of Homeland Security and takes some of the responsibilities formerly held by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) which did exist before and still does.
Defense Spending had to be increased dramatically after it was totally gutted by President Clinton in order to “balance” the budget. (That’s sort of like balancing your household budget by selling your car, TV, stereo, computer, furniture… to pay your bills, knowing that the next guy will have to replace all the stuff you sold). It’s one of those little political games that President Clinton liked to play. It was fun for him to see who would fall for it.
LBJ didn’t have to contend with that. He also lost a much, much larger number of American Soldiers. High Tech wars have many fewer casualties but are much more expensive to fight. Which would you prefer, a cheaper war with more caualties, or a more expensive war with far less U.S. casualties??? I know, I know, ‘no war at all’ – but that isn’t really an option at this point. I personally prefer to see the war fought with as few U.S. casualties as possible.
9:41 pm on October 24th, 2007 3
Just a reminder that the President doesn’t have the power to spend. That is reserved for the Congress.
What Bush has done is to not have reigned in the free-spending Democrat-controlled Congress.
6:15 pm on October 25th, 2007 4
What else is neglected to be said here is that his actions have prevented further attacks in America by taking the fight back to their homes. I love these so called “Current Events” blogs, that are hosted by people who have obviously never served in combat, let alone actually done some traditional reporting in a war zone. “Where’s your armor and helmet reporter? Oh, you don’t want to leave your hotel because it is dangerous out there? Okay, you can stay here and listen to what every Iraqi has to say about what is happening in his country.” Can he sign his name, or read a release to be quoted? 99% cannot. Will the left side ever know that, or even report that? No, of course not. That would require doing something besides ranting from their armchairs in the safety of their living rooms. Well done, Liberals!!!
4:25 pm on October 26th, 2007 5
have fun getting informed by iran.
2:12 pm on October 27th, 2007 6
Dave,
Yes, our servicemen will have lots of fun and self-satisfaction in destroying a terrorist organization. Will it be pretty like all you spoiled liberals think? No, there will be pain and death and dismemberment. But not to the scale you think. Unfortunately for you, you lack the knowledge of our military’s capabilities, as well as its resolve.
In the days of war that American men and women with national pride and the desire to preserve our way of life voluntary enlist knowing they are going to war shows that they have more spine than you liberals. You would rather divide our country at the worst possible time instead of backing it and speeding along the fight on the Global War on Terror. It’s just too bad that it will take a terrorist’s attack in your area to get you to realize that this is not just about what is happening in your livingroom television. If you served in this country’s military and still feel the same way you currently do, than you will have truly EARNED the obligation (rather than just the right) to express your opinions. Until then, you should stop being such an isolationist. Remember what happened the last time Americans were extremely reluctant to go to war and it took an attack by planes and torpedoes to wake people up? Once finally awakened (at the cost of servicemember’s lives) American citizens rallied around its military and demanded retribution. Well, what is the difference between that nefarious attack and the repeated terrorist operations inside America, including REPEATED bombings that eventually destroyed the WTC? I say none! Now, instead of a country to attack, we have a deeply-rooted ignorance and an IDEAL to attack. I find it funny that this site is populated by “Gun-Toting Liberals”, yet they fear war. Well, if it weren’t for better men than you, that war would be visited on America, and your guns would definitely be needed then, wouldn’t they? Cowards! You pride yourselves in being “Gun-Toters,” yet you refuse to tote one anywhere else besides you own neighborhoods. Shame on you. There are women who enlisted to perform a supporting role to the combat arms of our military who are relegated to standing posts at the gates of overseas bases instead of continuing to do the job they chose. If more of your spineless loud-mouths would enlist and support your country (regardless of its leaders), those women you hate to see hurt would not be at the gates, and manning the towers. Dave M., where is your courage? Are you too old to enlist now? That’s fine! Become a contractor with KBR, or other such NECESSARY company, and provide a supportive role on one of those bases. You have an opinion, so go earn it by helping your service members. Or would you rather sit on your duff and enjoy the liberties and securities provided by young men and women who are willing to put their lives in danger to sustain them. Dave M., did you know that you can enlist in the Armed Forces at a higher age than before? Why is that, Dave M.? Well, Dave, it is to allow patriotic men and women who are of a higher age bracket to be able to go out and protect your freedoms. You want them? Fine, go earn them, and nobody will EVER question your rights! You have no excuse!
4:53 pm on October 27th, 2007 7
wow! well i wouldn’t characterise me as a typical poster here.
see, i’m actually a ‘truther’, and would never enlist in a millitary that i know has a history of wars OF terror, and effective ones at that (see that huge threat latin america). oh, and good job with the poppy production in Afghanistan, i hear it’s doing quite well.
all the typical rhetoric: you’re protecting me, i’m a spineless commie coward pinko agitator, that about right? did i forget anything?
shame on me. oh well.
i can’t make out half of the rest of your diatribe.
sorry you’ve been brain-washed, if it were up to me you’d be home now, and some of your buddies might still have four limbs. it is NOT our duty to spread our ‘way of life’. frankly, nobody wants it right now. and aside from that it’s called a christian crusade.
good talk!
hang in there.
i’d be mad if i we’re you too.
5:09 pm on October 27th, 2007 8
“…we have a deeply-rooted ignorance…”
i couldn’t agree more. (how’s that for taking things out context?)
oh, and more importantly, aside from our war OF terror, i don’t fight for rich people.