Bush is not even Nixon though they have some similarities. More like Herbert Hoover or Nixon without the foreign policy expertise. A lesser president we have never had in our lifetimes. Makes Grey Davis look fiscally conservative.
Bush makes Grey Davis look fiscally conservative? Let's examine that proposition for a minute, shall we?
Bush inherited the fiscal year 2001 budget (that's the year that started in the Fall of 2000 while Clinton was still President). The spending for that fiscal year was $1,863,895,000,000. (that's 1.86 trillion).
(My source, by the way, for all federal budget statistics set forth in this post is w3.access.gpo.gov from the U.S. government. This is an invaluable source for discussing the actual history of U.S. budget issues.)
The budget Clinton inherited in 1993, by the way, was $1,409,489,000,000 (1.41 trillion). So, in 8 years, Clinton increased total federal outlays from 1.41 trillion to 1.86 trillion, an increase of 31.9 percent in 8 years. Inflation during those years was 22.56 percent (use calculator at data.bls.gov. U.S. population in January 1993 was 256,866,000, and by November 2000 when Bush was elected it had increased to 276,298,000. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau eire.census.gov. That is an increase of 7.6 percent.
If you take the federal budget outlays when Clinton took office (1.41 trillion) and you increase them by 22.56 percent by inflation, then increase the result by 7.6 percent to account for population growth, you get to an expected budget of 1.86 trillion. And that is exactly where Clinton ended up, to his credit.
Bush therefore inherited a budget which in real terms had neither grown nor shrunk in the preceding eight years. Davis, on the other hand, inherited a budget that had already been increased substantially under his predecessor, Pete Wilson.
From that starting point, here is what has happened to the Bush federal budget:
FY 2001: $1,863,895,000,000 (inherited budget from Clinton)
FY 2002: $2,010,975,000,000
FY 2003: $2,140,377,000,000 (projection; final figures should be available soon)
FY 2004: $2,229,425,000,000 (projected)
w3.access.gpo.gov
In percentage terms, the increases have been
From 2000 to 2001: 4.2 percent (Final Clinton budget)
From 2001 to 2002: 7.9 percent (First Bush budget)
From 2002 to 2003: 6.4 percent
From 2003 to 2004: 4.2 percent (projected)
There is no question that these increases are somewhat more than the rate of inflation combined with the rate of population growth. Are they historically high, higher than Grey Davis' in California or the rates of federal spending increase of any other President? (This was, after all, your assertion).
Fortunately, that question need not be rhetorical or just a matter of speculation or bald assertion. The facts are available. To you, to me, to everyone with a library or an Internet connection. Everyone, basically, that does not live in a cave, either an actual one or one constructed of their own choice not to observe and think and analyze.
Here are Grey Davis' numbers, in case you forgot:
Fiscal Year 1997-98: $100.2B
(Gray Davis elected, November 1998)
Fiscal Year 1998-99: $109.6B
Fiscal Year 1999-00: $122.2B
Fiscal Year 2000-01: $137.7B
Fiscal Year 2001-02: $145.8B
Fiscal Year 2002-03: $166.8B
Fiscal Year 2003-04: $154.7B (projected)
(See Message 19379787 and sources linked in that post.)
In percentage terms, total California state spending under Davis went up as follows:
1998-99: 9.4 percent (Budget Davis inherited)
1999-00: 11.5 percent (First Davis budget)
2000-01: 12.7 percent (Second Davis budget)
2001-02: 5.9 percent (Third Davis budget)
2002-03: 14.4 percent (Fourth Davis budget)
Let's compare those to Bush's first few years as set forth above:
From 2000 to 2001: 4.2 percent (Final Clinton budget)
From 2001 to 2002: 7.9 percent (First Bush budget)
From 2002 to 2003: 6.4 percent (Second Bush budget)
From 2003 to 2004: 4.2 percent (projected third Bush budget)
I fail to see how Bush's spending patterns make Grey Davis, to quote your words, "look fiscally conservative".
Incidentally, if you look at the federal numbers from the beginning of the country (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z1.xls), you will see numerous Presidents whose spending increases in percentage terms were way higher than Bush's. One fascinating example was this year-on-year comparison:
Year 1: $3,577,000,000
Year 2: $4,659,000,000
The federal budget was small back then, but that increase is 30.2 percent year on year. It happened in peacetime. It happened when there was no inflation. In percentage terms the increase is larger than all but one of the annual peacetime increases under FDR.
Who was this fiscal liberal, who increased federal spending by more than 30 percent in one year with no inflation and no war?
His name was Herbert Hoover, and the year was 1932. Receipts that year had gone dramatically down, and in percentage terms the resulting deficit was horrific. Of course, Herbert Hoover was a conservative and historians tell us he was a failure who didn't really try to do anything about the Great Depression, so I suppose we can just ignore those numbers since they don't fit in with everything we've always been told.
Just like we can ignore Bush's numbers in comparison to others and just say things like "Bush ... makes Grey Davis look fiscally conservative." We can say these things not because they are true. In fact, they aren't true. We can say these things because they sound nice, they support our theories that Bush is bad and others are not as bad.
Or we can say them, look at the facts, and admit we are wrong to have said them. The choice is yours. |
