Larger text
Smaller text
Print
E-mail
The party of unlimited government
Dimitri Vassilaros is a Tribune-Review editorial page editor. He can be reached at dvassilaros@tribweb.com or 412-380-5637. He also blogs at KDKA
President George W. Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since President Johnson, according to Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the libertarian think tank.
Exclude spending on defense and homeland security, and Mr. Bush still is the biggest-spending president in 30 years.
And Bush did that with only four budgets so far; Mr. Johnson signed five into law.
The 20-page Cato policy analysis, "The Grand Old Spending Party (How Republicans Became Big Spenders)" is available online at http://www.cato.org.
Bush has grown in office almost as much as the government has grown during his presidency. Old-timers might remember when the GOP told voters that it was the party of small government. Really.
Now Republicans act as if bigger is better -- and bigger than that is better still.
"They have become what they disliked the most in 1994 when they ran against the entrenched Democrat spending machine," Slivinski said. "It's the 'curse of incumbency.' The leaders do not keep an eye on their principles, just their majority status."
Since there is not enough money for guns (defense) or butter (social programs), Bush is thinking outside the box about paying for them.
Presidents reconcile how much to spend on each by cutting back on one or the other, Slivinski said.
But not Bush. He's the first Republican president since Democrat LBJ not to make a trade-off in spending. "Guns or butter has become guns and butter," Slivinski said.
Bush was willing to increase spending, he said, because (if you are a conservative, brace yourself) the Republicans have made peace with the welfare state. "His philosophical approach is that large government can be used for good, provided it does what the Republicans want it to do."
It could get much worse. But Bush will have no one to blame but himself and his fellow Republicans in Congress.
"You've also got the entitlements, all of which are careening toward a crash," Slivinski said. "Those types of structural problems are cost-shifting into the future."
As Bush's massive spending increases for Medicare kick in during his second term -- spending increases he fought for -- Bush's broken budgets could far exceed those of LBJ, the founding father of Medicare.
"When you cut taxes and increase spending, something has got to give," Slivinski said.
Slivinski is very perplexed because the Republicans control the White House and Congress. Bush does not have to worry about being re-elected, and because of gerrymandering, House members virtually have jobs for life.
Third World dictators should have such job security.
"The old excuses are no longer there," Slivinski said. "There is nothing to stop them from harkening back to their principles. They have nothing to worry about. But they still are not willing to make the tough decisions about spending.
"It makes me wonder if they have completely abandoned their principles on small government."
Slivinski might be the only person who still has doubts.
