I don't know if that's true. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, aided and abetted by a Congress of his own party. Would a GOP Congress have allowed a President Gore to do that?
Plus, as OBL pointed out, he could cause us to damage ourselves through spending (remember the USSR) with a very small investment himself. There wouldn't have been the need for many 9/11s if Gore spent as badly as Pres. Bush.
Spending and terrorism would have increased under Al Gore. The Republicans did not have much of a majority. Gore would have found enough RINOs to pick off to pass all kinds of crap. Osama and terrorism could have continued unabated with no significant response by Gore. But if you would have preferred Al Gore you must be glad to see Obama.
My belief is that Bush permitted the spending to get support for the War. For him, all was subordinate to the war. The one we won.
He got a lot wrong, but he got one big thing right.