Bush Beats LBJ on Spending [a report from Cato Institute]

Cato.org ^

[alessandrofiaschi]

In the latest Cato Tax and Budget Bulletin, Stephen Slivinski uses revised data released during the summer by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to make side-by-side comparisons of the spending habits of each president during the last 40 years.

While the data show that all presidents presided over net increases in spending, George W. Bush is shown to be one of the biggest spenders of them all, even outpacing Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

An excerpt from the report: "The increase in discretionary spending - that is, all nonentitlement programs - in Bush's first term was 48.5 percent in nominal terms. That's more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton's entire two terms (21.6 percent), and just higher than Lyndon Johnson's entire discretionary spending spree (48.3 percent)."

In the latest Cato Tax and Budget Bulletin, Stephen Slivinski uses revised data released during the summer by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to make side-by-side comparisons of the spending habits of each president during the last 40 years.

While the data show that all presidents presided over net increases in spending, George W. Bush is shown to be one of the biggest spenders of them all, even outpacing Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

An excerpt from the report: "The increase in discretionary spending - that is, all nonentitlement programs - in Bush's first term was 48.5 percent in nominal terms. That's more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton's entire two terms (21.6 percent), and just higher than Lyndon Johnson's entire discretionary spending spree (48.3 percent)."

[inquest]

Sorry, I completely misunderstood you. A number of Bush's defenders, when confronted with out-of-control spending, point to the fact that it's Congress's job to spend, therefore the President is blameless (of course, this never stops them from giving him credit whenever Congress passes something they approve of, or from scaremongering about what Kerry or Hillary would do if either of them got to the White House, but logic has never been the hallmark of idolaters). I thought that's what you were doing. My mistake.

[bad company]

Is this person on the RKBA ping list? I don't remember adding the name.

I've been on the list for a year and this is only the second time I've used it. No, alessandrofiaschi is not on the RKBA ping list, I think a discussion of this matter is in order.

[bad company]

Uh, homeland security and defense are not unecessary items, IMO, as the eggheads at Cato think.

That's what I don't get. I'm not under the illusion that Bush is some great conservative hero but when these "conservatives" complain about his spending and then include defense spending in their figures I've gotta see that as dishonest. Something is not adding up here.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Don't know if he is, but the list he pinged to is how the RKBA pinglist starts....I haven't updated lately myself...

[trussell]

I agree...The list is for RKBA members, not outsiders. This person is taking liberties that are not proper according to site rules.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Hijacked list? King Prout will want to know about this, maybe.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Just because I was invited me twice to the party.

[Kaslin]

Just goes to show that Bush is as addicted to alcohol as he is to spending. Someone should tell Laura to get Bush into Over Spenders Anonymous.

Just in case it skipped you,the president can not spend tax payer's money. Only congress does and can. Read the constitution.

[SaveTheChief]

I was just trying to answer the "Blame Bush for everything" crowd.

I realize that the President could do more to urge Congress to curb spending, but ultimately it is the job of Congress to raise funds and then spend those funds in a responsible manner. They have the power, and the obligation to override a veto, or dismiss any Presidential request to spend money.

The President does indeed share blame in this mess, but he is not the only one to be blamed. I'm tired of those who think he is, and I am tired of the reports that make it look like he is the reason for all the woes in the world.

And quite frankly, I am sick of politics.

[SmoothTalker]

This has been what has disappointed me most about Bush and the republican congress. They talk a good game to voters about fiscal discipline but then turn around and spend like liberals.

[Kaslin]

In case you missed it along with the cato institute, who should know better. Teh president can not spend tax payers money. Only Congress can and does. Read the constitution

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[SmoothTalker]

Of course not. And there in lies the problem. The democratic party is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Bush and the congress know that. So they don't take have to take fiscal conservatism seriously because they know conservatives and moderates don't have any other legitimate choice outside of the republican party because the Dems are off the deep end. So we see record pork.

[Kaslin]

A veto can be overwritten at which it becomes law anyway. I assume you know this

[Kaslin]

Oh please, have you ever heard of a Veto pen?

Apparently Bush never has.

And you appearnatly never heard that a veto can be overwritten, at which a bill becomes law anyway

[Kaslin]

Oh, its nice for the Cato Institute to lay this at George Bush's feet, but CONGRESS spends the money!!

Many seem to forget this.

[Kaslin]

...the Republican CONGRESS spends the money

And you can bet the democrats go right along with the spending

[Sometimes A River]

"overwritten"?

Uhh, it's "overridden."

And it takes 2/3rd's, a margin at which very few bills pass.

[Rastus]

Overridden, and it takes two-thirds of the House and Senate to do so. It's not a mere exercise in futility for the President to veto. First of all, when the President states an intention to veto, changes he demands in order to sign will be seriously considered. If the bill isn't changed and is vetoed anyway, it's no guarantee that everyone who voted for the bill will vote to override. In fact, without looking up actual numbers, I would imagine it's a pretty safe bet that a lot of votes would change. There are political consequences to opposing your President both from the White House and from the people back home.

[Kaslin]

Thanks. I never know if it is overwritten or over ridden