Presidential Spending from the OMB !

[Murffieus]

The US Office of Management & Budget (today's Investor Biz Daily) has released these figures of Presidential spending as a percentage of GDP.

Johnson 18.8%
Nixon 19.5%
Ford 21%
Carter 21.2%
Reagan 22.3%
Bush 1 21.9%
Clinton 19.6%
Bush 2 20%

So there are 4 presidents (Dems & Reps)who have spent more than GWB ! But GWB gets the "big spender rap"----go figure!

[mu_hilltopper]

I would think that most conservatives would be highly irked at the growth in federal spending (and debt) that has occurred in the past 7 years, regardless of GDP %age.

Aren't you?

.. And I wouldn't point the finger at Bush.  I'd point 8 fingers at Congress, which was held by the Republicans during that period. -- That being said, the Democrats, 10 months into their reign, aren't much better.

[mviale]

too bad GWB spending was on deficit spending.  Not too fiscally responsible.

The ratio of debt to GDP had been generally dropping since the end of World War II.  When Mr. Reagan entered office the percent of US debt relative to GDP was down to 33.3%.    He argued vociferously to reduce the level of all that liberal spending.  However the only real effort he pursued was to get taxes cut while increasing spending.  You can see in Figure 2 above that cutting taxes and increasing spending predictably made the debt increase - in real dollars and as a percent of GDP.  During his eight years in office the percentage of debt to GDP grew to 51.9%.  This amounts to a 64% increase in debt relative to GDP while Reagan was in the White House -- a rather significant increase by anyone's measure.



The percentage of debt to GDP continued to grow until 1996, when Mr. Clinton began to get government spending under control.  The US debt peaked at 67.3% of GDP under his administration.  By the end of the Clinton administration this percentage had dropped to 57.6%.  Debt as a percent of GDP dropped almost 10% in four years under a Democratic President with a hostile Republican Congress.  Mr. Clinton showed steadfast fiscal leadership against all odds and in spite of right-wing attacks and misinformation.



Mr. Bush II inherited a shrinking government and debt in 2001.  With his first budget he managed to increase the debt to GDP ratio to 60.0%, by cutting taxes but not spending.  By 2004 this ratio had risen to 63.7%, as a result of additional tax cuts but no significant corresponding cuts in spending.  Government estimations (which are notoriously low) predict that the debt to GDP ratio will grow to 69.3% by 2008, two percent higher than the previous peak in 1996.  Mr. Bush will completely wipe out the gains we made under a fiscally responsible Democratic President.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

[77ncaachamps]

Though not a Bush supporter, the context must be shared that:

- Clinton enjoyed the 90s boom but was able to manage/maintain the surplus
- Bush dealt with 9/11. His "economic downfall" was not budgeting for a war that would last longer than America's engagement in WWII.

Fortunately for him, he won't have to deal - presidentially - with the lasting effects of financing this war, the housing crisis, nor the baby boom generation's sucking of social security and federal teets.

Unfortunately for the rest of us and the next President, we will.