Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that disasters such as worldwide famine and an obesity epidemic could destroy the U.S. health care system unless politicians begin to look ahead and cooperate. (WSJ Opinion.)
It brings to mind the joke about the statistician with one hand on the hot burner and the other in the icebox: “On average, I feel fine.”
It’s particularly enjoyable that the two following inconsistent theories come from the same article.
“North Korea is living under constant threat from mentally unstable Bush regime since he included North Korea and Iran in his famous axis of evil speech.” The “NK is afraid of the US” excuse.
“The US is in no position to take any military action against North Korea to pursue their regime change policy or air strike on its Nuclear facilities because that will bring death and destruction in millions.” The “NK isn’t afraid of the US” excuse.
I’m sure there will be more theories proposed. How about:
It’s Iran’s fault. They talked North Korea into the test to distract the world.
It’s Israel’s fault. They talked North Korea into the test to justify their own possession of nukes.
It’s Hugo Chavez’s fault. The devil made him do it.
It’s the shadow government’s fault. They want us to give up more civil rights are on our relentless march to a one world government.
It’s Dennis Hastert’s fault. He had an e-mail warning of the test for two years and did nothing about it.
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years.
I tend to think visually, so I like lots of charts and graphs. This paper doesn’t disappoint. I recreated a couple of its graphs that support the claims quoted above.
First: “President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson.” Please note the careful wording: “presided over.” The paper makes clear that “Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs.” Even so, Bush signed these budgets. Had fiscal responsibility been a true goal, he could have used the veto power. And let’s not forget, Bush has had a Republican majority in Congress.1
But wait, I hear you objecting — What about the cost of the war on terrorism? Certainly that accounts for Bush’s increases in spending. You’d be right, in part. The paper documents the changes in “discretionary spending” and “entitlement spending” but includes military spending in the discretionary class. Why not exclude defense, homeland-security, and entitlement spending in the comparison, resulting in what many (most?) would call true “discretionary spending”?2
Fortunately, the paper anticipated our request. And, unfortunately for those of us who pay taxes, the picture doesn’t get any better.
President George W. Bush is once again second in the rankings, this time following Nixon. It may be blasphemy, but the combination of Clinton and a Republican Congress kept spending relatively low. Not surprising for an administration that harped, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Only Reagan had a real reduction.
The paper notes the increased spending that results from a “united government,” where both the executive branch and the majority of the legislative branch are of the same party. When the two branches are of different parties, one tends to oppose the spending of the other. When they are of the same party, neither opposes the spending excesses of the other. ↩
Many may not want to include entitlement spending in discretionary spending because it cannot be decreased without an intense political battle. In arguing this point, one should remember that Bush had no difficulty increasing entitlement spending with his prescription drug benefit, which the Cato Institute describes as “the largest expansion of Medicare since its inception.” ↩
Gerry at Daly Thoughts posted an analysis on the percentage of circuit court nominations confirmed by the Senate.
A reasonable interpretation on that chart is that, starting with Reagan, the process began to become politicized. The Democrats became even more aggressive at this during George H.W. Bush’s term. The Republicans then upped the ante a bit under Clinton, particularly with his late second-term nominations. And under George W. Bush, the Democrats have decided raise the ante yet again.
It is even more stark if one looks at just the numbers for a President’s first Congress:
I recommend that you read the entire post and the comments.