Fiscal Conservatism and Budget Restraint

[Godwynn]

Are the self proclaimed fiscal conservatives really shrinking the size of government and the budget?

Here are some interesting graphs from the Heritage Foundation:





Looking at the above graphs, Bill Clinton grew the budget by the lowest percentage of all presidents since Eisenhower.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, both Democrats, allowed the budget to grow by less than the conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, as well as other Republican presidents.

National Debt by Administration

Carter Average per year: 4.075%
Reagan Average per year: 3.075%
Bush I Average per year: 1.95%
Clinton Average per year: 1.5375%
Bush II Average per year: 4.9%

Who here is surprised by this?

Enjoy

 

[The Yankee]

[Chris Matthews]Hah! Hah! Hah![/Chris Matthews]

Though Heritage commentators would probably love to go back to Reagan, you do have to factor in the Congress that Clinton had to work with. But, given how well GWB managed with a Congress in his favor for almost six whole years, that would just be more of a credit to the government of the 1990s, wouldn't it?

Even if there was a government shutdown....

 

[Babbler]

Did you know it costs a lot of money to invade/liberate places?

 

[Godwynn]

Did you it costs a lot of money to invade/liberate places?

Yes it does, to the tune of $462,000,000,000 so far. Anyone who has paid attention to the news knows that this is not the main reason for a budget increase.

Que 'bridge to nowhere' reference.

Only recently has Bush II decided to veto spending bills, because they are put forth by the Democrats.

 

[Babbler]

Only recently has Bush II decided to veto spending bills, because they are put forth by the Democrats.

Like media "bias", pork is only pork when it isn't going your way.

 

[Godwynn]

Like media "bias", pork is only pork when it isn't going your way.

We have a winner.

 

[The Yankee]

Like media "bias", pork is only pork when it isn't going your way.

Precisely! Bring on the liberal pork!

 

[Integral]

IIRC, Mr. Bush didn't pick up the veto pen until just this year. In other words, every pet project got through the spending bills without a hitch. Pork spending isn't the main problem, far from it, but it is an easy reminder of government waste. And Mr. Bush has allowed all of it.

And when the man does wield the veto, he does it to kill a bill that would provide medical care for poor, sick children. There is no greater PR disaster than that.

Just to expand on the good Godwynn's statistics:
Health: $680 billion, from $405 billion in 2000.
Social Security: $450 billion, from $375 billion in 2000.
Defense: $550 billion, from $320 billion in 2000.
Overall federal spending: $2,700 billion, from $1,800 billion in 2000.


-Integral

 

[The Yankee]

The first veto was on stem cell research. Edit: The first veto came last summer.

The list of GWB's vetoes:

George W. Bush

[edit] 107th Congress and 108th Congress

No vetoes.

[edit] 109th Congress

1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).

[edit] 110th Congress

2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of, H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.

3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed.)

So a heck of a lot of other appropriations go through. Seems that only during a conference committee that a compromise bill costs more than either the House or Senate versions and it probably holds true when the President and Congress negotiate, also.

 

[Integral]

Perhaps this was his first veto on a spending bill? I may be recalling incorrectly...

Meh. Faulty memory. You are right, wiki says that his first veto was on stem cell research. The SCHIP thing was his fourth veto. EDIT: aaaaand you quoted the wiki in your post. Thanks.

 

[Bill3000]

Wow. Bush only had 4 vetos?

 

[LightFang]

I know, that's terrible! Only four! Darn pork.

 

[Miles Teg]

Wow. Bush only had 4 vetos?

First prez since Quincy Adams to go an entire term without a veto. Yet another thing he shares in common with Adams JR.

 

[EconomistBR]

Did you know it costs a lot of money to invade/liberate places?

Yes it does, to the tune of $462,000,000,000 so far. Anyone who has paid attention to the news knows that this is not the main reason for a budget increase.

Blaming the spending increase on the war is misleading and wrong.

Those tables are another prove that Clinton was a really good president, he left GWB a budget surplus unlike GWB will leave for the next.

 

[Integral]

Those tables are another prove that Clinton was a really good president, he left GWB a budget surplus unlike GWB will leave for the next.

Bush is on track to balance the budget in a year or two; the deficit was cut from $248 billion to $161 billion from 2006 to 2007.

I don't like him either--he has spent far too much money in the past six years--but he is trying to correct that mistake. Belatedly.

Just sayin'


-Integral

EDIT: sources:
CBO, Monthly Budget Review, October 2007.
BEA, NIPA Table 3.2.

 

[Mark1031]

I was well aware of this fact. I frankly do not understand why anyone woudl vote for a republican. Would someone enlighten me. They are not more fiscally conservative but less. They are not more competent at running government as our disastrous CEO Pres has shown most recently. They can;t manage foreign policy properly (our big success with NK was getting back to the Clinton doctrine of bribing them not to build nukes, after letting them build a few first because of our petulant toughness). Russian relations going down the tubes as well Can't run a war. What is it that would cause people to vote for these guys. You actually believe their silly posturing and lies?

 

[El_Machinae]

Wouldn't Social Security naturally grow, as the population ages?

 

[Godwynn]

Wouldn't Social Security naturally grow, as the population ages?

It would. The main point here being is that it grew less under Clinton than it did under Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II.

 

[Integral]

Wouldn't Social Security naturally grow, as the population ages?

OK, then look at it another way. Those three units-defense, health, and social security-are usually known as 'mandatory spending' since they can't be helped. The rest is discretionary spending.

In 2000, discretionary spending was $700 billion. In 2006, it was $1,020 billion, an increase of about $300 billion.

There's where the problem lies, methinks.

EDIT: Mandatory also includes interest on debt, which was $280 billion in year 2000 and $270 billion in 2006. So discretionary spending is lowered to $420 billion and $720 billion respectively. The difference remains around $300 billion. Sorry about that omission.

EDIT2: Or, to look at it another way, federal government spending was 18% of GDP in 2000 and is about 20% today. Which just agrees with Godwynn's graphs: so much for restraint.

-Integral

(Source: BEA NIPA 3.16. I should probably just link to the damn thing in my signature, I use it so much.)

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not arguing that he's been a fiscal disaster. I just am unsure it's fair to lump SS in there.

The fiscality has been worse than most Americans realise, too, because the value of the dollar has been shot down so badly. The value of a USD, saved in the bank, has dropped quite a bit in the last six years. So, you're spending more of something that's worth less.

Have the rich been taxed by his policies? Certainly, on their savings.