Last night, president Bush was heard lying (again!) on the radio. In the
presidential debates, he offered this titanic whopper:

"Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent
a year when I got into office. And today it's less than 1 percent, because
we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control."

Total lie. Try 8.2% -- adjusted for inflation. No wonder the Cato Institute
called Bush "the Mother of All Spenders." Listen folks, Bush is not a
conservative. Not even close.

The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like
Clinton.
by Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

July 28, 2003

(Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst and Tad DeHaven a fiscal
policy researcher at the Cato Institute.)

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an
anticipated budget deficit of $455 billion for the current fiscal year, up
another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the
administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax
cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits
because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the
White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother
of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408
billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in
federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit
that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in
times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has
resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that
a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for
government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible
for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense
spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office.
But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have
skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were
calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and
labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent
and 65 percent respectively.

Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew
their income was going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company
would look to cut costs should the business climate take a turn for the
worse. But the administration has been free-spending into the face of a
recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to
reduce costs.

The White House spinmeisters insist that we keep the size of the deficit "in
perspective." Sure it's appropriate that the budget deficit should be
measured against the relative size of the economy. Today, the projected
budget deficit represents 4.2 percent of the nation's GDP. Thus the folks in
the Bush administration pat themselves on the back while they remind us that
in the 1980s the economy handled deficits of 6 percent. So what? Apparently
this administration seems to think that achieving low standards instead of
the lowest is supposed to be comforting.

That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because
the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics
than policy. Even the tax cuts, which happened to be good policy, were still
political in nature considering their appeal to the Republican's
conservative base. At the same time, the politicos running the Bush
reelection machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the
liberals and special interests by throwing money at their every whim and
desire. In mathematical terms, the administration calculates that satiated
conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.

How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report
criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that
expands those same programs? How else can one explain the administration
acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left
unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year
before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be
described as Clintonian.

But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in
inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of
only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly,
after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending
actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year
total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in
non-defense discretionary spending.

Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to
the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion,
purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact,
what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like
Clinton. Our only hope is that the exploding deficit will finally cause the
administration to get serious about controlling spending.

This article originally appeared in NRO on July 28, 2003.

http://www.cato.org/research/article...en-030728.html