CATO Institute: Bush Had Largest Rise In Discretionary Nondefense Spending

[berni_mccoy]

And this report is from 2004.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf

Only LBJ outpaced Bush's Discretionary Nondefense spending.

From the report:

Another excuse given for the current fed- eral spending binge is that national security needs are driving up the budget. Certainly, defense spending has increased dramatically since the late 1990s, particularly since 9/11. However, Figure 4 shows that discretionary nondefense spending has risen almost as rapidly as defense spending in recent years. The president’s new budget shows that real discretionary defense spending will increase 36 percent between FY2001 and FY2005 and nondefense spending will increase 25 per- cent. These increases are much larger than increases under most recent presidents.



Figure 5 shows the cumulative real discre- tionary nondefense spending increases dur- ing the first terms of recent presidents. Each president’s first year in office is set at a base of 100. Only Lyndon Johnson outpaced President Bush’s spending.

Bush increased the Discretionary Nondefense spending more than half a trillion dollars in his first 3 years as President. Perhaps Pres. Obama wants to take a bite out of that. Unless you all think that 1/2 a trillion spent by Bush and the Neocons in Congress was worthwhile spending.... you should be waiting to see what Obama's plan is before jumping to conclusions.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. The donut hole, most likely.

[Winterblues]

2. Bush* had the largest increase in Spending PERIOD

He spent more in eight years than all other Administrations combined. He truly was like a drunken sailor after payday..Only he didn't have the money to spend, he put it on the cuff and let your grandchildren deal with it..

[berni_mccoy]

5. Very true, but this report came out before Bush's 2nd term where he did a great deal more damage

[arthritisR_US]

17. my co-worker yesterday said that Obama has printed more money in

one year than any other past president. Don't know where to find info to disprove this but it struck me wrong.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. But you see, there weren't any tea baggers during Bush II and Cheney said deficits didn't matter.

[gratuitous]

4. Yeah!

It's only when Democrats are in control that spending or the deficit becomes an issue. Reagan proved that. And thus shall it ever be.

[berni_mccoy]

15. Sad. On the flip side you have the same people here who attacked Bush

For wasteful spending who are now attacking Obama for trying to control the very waste Bush created.

[mmonk]

6. Reaganomics spends money, just not on the people.

Cato is an organization that arose out of the Powell Memo. You can have spending on corporate interests or no spending on the public interest. Same thing.

[berni_mccoy]

7. Could it be that Obama wants to reduce the spending on corporate interests?

Or are you not going to even give him that?

[mmonk]

8. You tell me. I can only look at what I have seen.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Why don't you say you trust that Bush's 1/2 trillion discretionary spending was worthwhile

expenditures? You'd rather believe that than believe Obama would reduce waste in that spending.

[mmonk]

12. Because it wasn't.

I'm not going to engage in any straw dog conversations. I'll wait and see what he does.

[berni_mccoy]

16. I'm glad you are holding your opinion of this decision until after you hear the details.

[mmonk]

18. My economic sense tells me I'm probably not going to like it

but I will also listen before rendering judgement. I do not know what is all in it. An economy like our needs spending stimulus more than tax cuts. Something that can turn over dollars and at least provide temporary work to jumpstart some job creation. My post secondary education was in economics and government. I wrote my thesis on Jack Kemp's economics proposal which ended up being Reaganomics (saying it wouldn't work in the long term).

[tridim]

14. +1

[Scurrilous]

9. K & R

:thumbsup:

[upi402]

11. You libs and yer stinkin faks

Bring on the missing white chicks, nothing to see here, move along. This is old news, we have to leave it there.

(upi402 seeks full time employment at any major media outlet, medical benefits not required)

[berni_mccoy]

13. Yeah, facts can be annoying to the paranoid and fear mongers.