It’s been a rough decade to be a fiscal conservative. On account of the $300 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and massive (but maybe ill-directed) hikes in Medicare, education and labor budgets, the American taxpayer has footed the bill for big-ticket line items that have pushed real dollar government spending past $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II.
That remarkable figure, however, comes from a report drafted by
the conservative Heritage Foundation, usually a supporter of President Bush. The administration’s spending has nettled other conservative-leaning groups too; a Wall Street Journal editorial complained in
2003 about the “GOP’s spending spree,” lamenting that “Bush has
yet to meet a spending bill he doesn’t like.” Indeed, the Bush administration inherited a $236 billion annual federal surplus, whereas the federal deficit will sink to an estimated record $427 billion in the 2005 fiscal year.
Of course, an unqualified comparison to the fiscal heyday of the late ’90s is neither as fair nor as informative as some of the administration’s critics like to think: An economic turndown began before Bush took office, and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks left already lagging consumer confidence pallid.
Moreover, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq complicate any analysis of Bush administration fiscal policy. Certainly, the need to remove
oppressive governments from power, or at least genocidal dictators, carries a moral necessity that many leftists deny. (How exactly they ought to be removed and by whom, however, are separate and ethically thornier matters.)
Still, the central folly of the Bush administration’s economic policy is not difficult to locate: Bush’s dedication to fiscal conservatism is only half-hearted.
His moral clarity about fiscal
self-determination is spot-on.
Individuals tend to spend money
on themselves more appropriately and efficiently than governments acting on their behalf. Of course,
this is only true up to a point:
Some kinds of infrastructure and
resources are only reasonably
managed by a government. The funding of reasonably neutral
judiciary and law enforcement
agencies is necessary to protect
civil liberties and other things mandated by the spirit or letter of
the Constitution.
But somehow, Bush has coupled the philosophy of a leaner federal pocketbook with that of a bigger credit limit. Between Sept. 30, 2000 and the same date in 2004, the federal deficit ballooned by $2.22 trillion. That’s about three times the $714 billion deficit increase, adjusted for inflation, of the second term Reagan presidency, an administration oft maligned as archetypically poor fiscal managers.
Of course, defense spending
hikes may be necessary in wartime. Between Bush’s first inauguration and mid-2003, defense spending
increased by 34 percent. But non-
defense discretionary spending jumped 28 percent during the same period. In fact, 55 percent of
the spending increases were unrelated to defense and homeland security, according to the Heritage
Foundation analysis.
The problem is not difficult to see: Spending has skyrocketed, but thanks to both a flagging economy and tax cuts, federal revenue has
decreased. Given that some eight percent of federal spending now goes to paying interest on existing debt, overextending the national pocketbook is a poor tool for long-term planning.
Present governmental spending far outstrips what it should be and tax cuts are economically and morally beneficial, but only when made fiscally sound by commensurate spending cuts. Some political battles are pitched between principle and pragmatism. Regrettably, the Bush administration’s economic policies are allied with neither.

[email protected]