Bush let a lot go through that shouldn't have, regards spending. However, he did so because he had limited political freedom of movement to do otherwise because the opposition used the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as leverage. Especially after the House went Democrat in 2006, Bush was really nailed down when it came to spending.
The point is that Bush needs to be viewed as having had limited options and in a position where he makes decisions between the two lesser evil options. Had Bush tried to curb spending the way many wish, he would have jeopardized the GWOT, Iraq, and Afghanistan which the Democrats had no hesitation nor quams to play/gamble with so they can get what they want.
It's cool to blame Bush, and even the Conservative politicians, bloggers, media etc like to point out a shortcoming with Bush regards spending that one really can't blame Bush completely for.
Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
