No, not the way you might think. Atrios linked to this Cato Institute opinion piece about out of control spending by the Bush administration, because he liked this part:
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.
Reading in the comments section on the Atrios post, (always good fun) we find some leftists perplexed by these numbers:
Where is this money going if not defense related? Most social programs are flat or cut, education, energy, environment, urban development, all the same. So where's it going? - Loser (yes, the commenter really calls himself 'loser')
Loser couldn't be more wrong. There are some cuts, somewhere, I suppose. But spending is up accross the board. From the Cato article:
Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.
What is confounding to the left, so much so that I don't think they dare admit to it, is that Bush is spending money on social aid programs at a rate they couldn't manage. Clinton could not have passed these sorts of budgets through a Republican or even Democrat congress, but Bush has no such impediment. Congress goes along with his budgets because to Republicans he's their guy, and the Democrats like these spending items anyway.
This is a similar scenario to the Clinton welfare reform. No way a Republican president could have passed such a thing, even with a Republican congress.
Here's an interesting question. Will any Democratic presidential candidate take advantage of these budgets by proposing to cut spending on social programs? Could you imagine one of them with a Reaganesque campaign of 'Big Government is Bad?'
I won't hold my breath.
I really have to hand it to the Cato Institute for sticking by their guns even when a supposed ally is in the Whitehouse.
I'm not sure the fact that he's spending on social programs is the problem, at least not the one I'm concerned about. Its the fact that he's cutting taxes while he's doing it.
Posted by: w0zz at August 2, 2003 05:29 PMIn spite of the tax cuts, I don't believe there's actually a decrease in overall revenue for the federal gov't. The deficits are caused entirely by spending increases.
Posted by: Walter in Denver at August 3, 2003 10:18 AMNow I'm no economist, but how does Bush cut as much as he has without a decrease in revenue? That's presumably the idea of the tax cut, to starve "big government" of funds. I have no doubt the spending increases are mostly to blame, but the fact that he's spending huge amounts of money (on mostly necessary expenses) and still cutting taxes in an attempt to starve medicare and social security to death is what bothers me.
Posted by: w0zz at August 4, 2003 10:51 PM