[A.Hun]

There has been no vast expansion of the government under George Bush.

Spending for the Federal government is right in the average of the last forty years as a percent of GDP.

You need a different argument, one that is true.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

[beeler]

Hahaha. Oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh harder. Bwahahaha!

[steve-b]

There has been no vast expansion of the government under George Bush.

[untenured]

Those charts actually don't tell a great story, because they say that federal spending to GDP has been rising for the entire time Mr. Bush has been in office.

In 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, total spending was 21.4 percent. It was 18.5 percent when he left in 2001. Under the Bush presidency it has risen to 20.1 percent. "Programmatic spending," i.e. entitlements, went from 11.2 percent to 10.9 percent under 'Toon, and has risen to 11.8 percent since. Discretionary spending went from 8.2 percent to 6.5 percent from 1993-2001, and has risen to 7.9 percent since. (One percentage point of that latter is defense.)

But of course Pres. Bush has governed with a GOP House during his entire time, and a GOP Senate for much of it. So we could reasonably expect that spending not rise, but (defense aside) actually fall as a percentage of the economy. Instead we got the prescription-drug entitlement, which (like all such entitlements) will prove to be far more expensive than first forecast and which many GOP Reps., to their credit, opposed. I don't really want government to return to its normal level when the GOP is in charge, I want it to shrink. That it has not is probably a function of what the public wants, but this shatters the notion that the GOP is any sort of revolutionary party on spending.

On spending Pres. Bush has made mistakes. I think he now realizes that, but a lot of the damage is done.