LOL. He spent way too much for my liking, but this is not his fault now.
Bush was between a rock and a hard spot. Congress had him by the balls, attaching all sorts of pork and social agenda themes to defense appropriations bills and supplements that were required for Iraq and the GWOT. If Bush had vetoed these bills because of their pork, pandering to special interests such as the GLBT community..... he would have had to shoot himself in the foot with Iraq and the GWOT. He played his hand as good as he could, but he simply had a shitty hand especially after the 2006 Congressional elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2006
Bush was hostage of the war and our national security needs. The war was perceived as a Republican and Bush administration doing and the Democrats played the opposition political game. In addition, Congress used the need for war spending to drive their big government and social permissive agenda.
It's really Congress, not Bush that was the culprit during his reign when it came to spending. Most the early big spending under the Bush administration was for the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and greater GWOT. When Congress flipped that changed and the fact that the administration had to support the war effort was used by the opposition to fund all sorts of pork. Even the Bush bail out of the financial sector didn't go a fraction as far as what they have taken it to. But that won't prevent them from blaming everything negative on Bush and taking any credit for anything good, even two years in office.