Is Bush Jnr a Tax-and-Spend Democrat at heart?

[August1991]

Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.

The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.

....

"Budgeting is about making choices, and this period is one that shows a complete absence of that," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican who stepped down last year as director of the Congressional Budget Office.

"By far the bulk of new funding — 75% of it — has been to restore the hollowed-out military the president inherited, strengthen homeland defenses after 9/11, and fight the war on terror," says Scott Milburn, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. "These are essential investments that were required ... to protect our nation."

USA Today

[The OMB is the President's budget chief so of course the OMB would justify this rise in spending.]

I have argued elsewhere that the test of a government's economic competence is not whether it balances the budget, or runs a deficit or surplus. The sole test is how much the government takes from the economy, what the level of government spending is. By that standard, Bush Jnr has been a disaster, worse than both Clinton and Reagan.

Government is a juggernaut and the easiest thing for a politician to do is to say yes. Clearly, Bush Jnr has trouble saying no.

Spending is going up, but what are Americans getting when their President spends their money?

The US federal government is looking at $200 billion for the 1 million people in Katrina New Orleans - that's $200,000 per person. Maybe the government should just cut cheques and get out of the reno business entirely.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I have argued elsewhere that the test of a government's economic competence is not whether it balances the budget, or runs a deficit or surplus.

You have also argued elsewhere that a deficit doesn't matter, and that spending without consideration of repayment is not an issue. By that standard,

By that standard, Bush Jnr has been a disaster, worse than both Clinton and Reagan.

there can't be a classification of 'worse', only different. Reaganomics was all about creating growth with budget deficits (jerking off the dog to feed the cat), while Clinton tried to put the brakes on it and be fiscally responsible.

Bush isn't a 'tax and spend democrat', he spends while saying he will cut taxes. Theoretically, that's even worse.

[August1991]

Thelonious, this is the key sentence in the quote above:

The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show.

I don't care whether Bush Jnr is running a deficit or is balancing the budget. What matters is that the US federal government now takes 20.1% of what the American people produce whereas it only took 18.5% when he came to power.

In the past federal election, Martin went around saying "I balanced the budget." The budgetary balance is not important. The level of spending is important.

And by that standard, Bush Jnr has been a failure. He's a tax-and-spend Democrat.

Reaganomics was all about creating growth with budget deficits (jerking off the dog to feed the cat), while Clinton tried to put the brakes on it and be fiscally responsible.

If you take a look at the link, you'll see that both Reagan and Clinton actually saw government spending fall as a percetage of GDP during their Administrations.

At the risk of repeating myself endlessly, whether Clinton or Reagan had deficits or surpluses is not the critical question. It is how they organized government spending.

[Freshinit]

“have argued elsewhere that the test of a government's economic competence”

Economic competence under national leadership should not illustrate the impulsive characteristics of individualist economic competition.

“The sole test is how much the government takes from the economy, what the level of government spending is.”

I do not agree that Government spending should always be viewed as a negative.

“By that standard, Bush Jar has been a disaster, worse than both Clinton and Reagan.”

By what standard? How do the fundamentals of less Government affect the outcome of the future, more importantly for the better?

“Government is a juggernaut and the easiest thing for a politician to do is to say yes. Clearly, Bush Jnr has trouble saying no.”

Economic juggernauts are essential features of an organized civil world. Economic restraints on the civilian population are in place to guide the majority towards recognized logic.

“Spending is going up, but what are Americans getting when their President spends their money?

The US federal government is looking at $200 billion for the 1 million people in Katrina New Orleans - that's $200,000 per person. Maybe the government should just cut cheques and get out of the reno business entirely.”

He is shifting the focus of the populous from matters at home to affairs in the Middle East. Where’s diplomacy? Why isn’t the general public being exposed to a rhetorical look on the Muslim-extremist way of life?

Journalism blows my mind, how easy it is to tame a large group of opinionated minds by giving them social scapegoats. Now entertainment is an important part of life, credible art forms should and do receive the focus of the average person, but on occasion proportion is breached and it is literally impossible to avoid certain media.

[Liam]

To answer the question the title of this thread poses, No, he is not a tax and spend Democrat. The worst thing you can say about someone who taxes and spends is that he taxes enough to pay the bills. Bush is worse. He's a credit card Republican who will end up leaving a mountain of debt for the young to pay off.

[Michael Hardner]

He's a credit card Republican who will end up leaving a mountain of debt for the young to pay off.

He's a mismanager who came across better on TV than his wooden opponents and here we are.

GWB is a product of the terrible American political system, whereby 'brands' get elected rather than people, and the better marketing campaign is thought to indicate the better leader.

A question, though: how bad would the deficit be without the extra defence spending ?

[Black Dog]

Bush Jnr has been a failure. He's a tax-and-spend Democrat.

Actually he's a tax and spend Republican. Which, when one thinks about it, is kind of redundant.

[lit_schaeffer]

No, he's a don't tax and spend republican, as amply illustrated by his mounting deficit. But why not? If the Republicans keep getting elected by mortgaging the future, and the U.S. electorate is too stupid or apathetic to call them on it, why should they stop?

[August1991]

To answer the question the title of this thread poses, No, he is not a tax and spend Democrat. The worst thing you can say about someone who taxes and spends is that he taxes enough to pay the bills. Bush is worse. He's a credit card Republican who will end up leaving a mountain of debt for the young to pay off.

Worse? It makes no difference whether a government taxes or borrows. See below, and then think about what the word "government" means.

No, he's a don't tax and spend republican, as amply illustrated by his mounting deficit. But why not? If the Republicans keep getting elected by mortgaging the future, and the U.S. electorate is too stupid or apathetic to call them on it, why should they stop?

Borrow-and-spend? Same as tax-and-spend.

By borrowing and not taxing now, Bush Jnr is just leaving more money in the hands of taxpayers today (but not in the hands of government bondholders today since he's borrowing from them). Since taxpayers will have more cash now, they can leave a larger inheritance to their kids to pay the kids who inherit the bonds from the bondholders.

IOW, Bush Jnr is just moving financial paper around - bonds, taxes - same deal. Tax and spend, borrow and spend, for a government, it makes no difference.

----

In my view, what are Americans getting for the purchases Bush Jnr is making on their behalf? Should Bush Jnr remodel New Orleans? Should he remodel Iraq?

The US President has access to all the savings and earnings of all Americans. For example, Bush Jnr has access to the credit cards and the debit cards of Bill Gates. Which card Bush uses does not matter (Gates will just transfer money at the end of the month), but what does matter is what (and how much) Bush buys, regardless of the card Bush uses to pay.

That's government.

[Liam]

It is absolutely worse to finance long term than it is to tax and spend in a single fiscal cycle. Bush's fiscal policy will wreak havoc on generations to come. The worst that could be said of "tax and spend" democrats was that they lacked the fiscal discipline to keep things under control while they were spending the money. When you've got the national credit card down on the bar, however, you're not thinking of the day when Visa mails the statement, so the sky's the limit.

[August1991]

It is absolutely worse to finance long term than it is to tax and spend in a single fiscal cycle.

If you had Bill Gates' credit card and bank card in your hand, would you say that it is better to use the bank card, and not his credit card? Would it matter? (He'd just pay the bill anyway.)

The world cannot borrow from the future. When someone argues that we are borrowing from future generations, I stop listening. If it were possible to borrow from the future, then what happens if the future refuses to pay the debt?

Supposed future debts are just debts exchanged by people alive today.

If you want, go on a cruise, buy a Florida condo, destroy the environment and leave nothing to your kids. Your neighbour will leave her wealth to her kids. They'll be rich, and your kids will have nothing.