Josh, I too am disappointed with Bush's lack of fiscal discipline, but I think these numbers you provide are misleading to a certain extent.

They refer to total discretionary spending, not merely domestic discretionary spending. This means that all the money that the U.S. has spent in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is included.

If the issue is social programs, as you point out with your comparison to LBJ, then the inclusion of military spending should not be included.

First and foremost, I think the military spending is important to consider, for reasons to numerous to discuss here. I don't think the only concern is social programs.

But even if we discount military spending and look only at nondefense discretionary spending, as you suggest you we do, the current president still comes in a not-so-distant second place.

I can't be sure, but I would suppose that LBJ actually considered some action designed to pay for his expenditures. Bush's profligate spending has been combined with deep tax cuts. My generation and my kids' generation will, therefore, be the ones who have to pay for Bush's excesses.

Perhaps some will begin to see the term 'Red state' in a new light.

I agree there is way too much wasteful domestic spending, but when people use terms like "Bush's profligate spending," I must point out that the deficit as % of GDP is *not* at an all-time high, or even at an unusually high level, historically.

I can't be sure, but I would suppose that LBJ actually considered some action designed to pay for his expenditures. Bush's profligate spending has been combined with deep tax cuts.

Bush's tax cuts have actually raised tax revenues, just not enough to keep pace with the massive growth in government spending.

Don't try to tie Bush to the Democrats. He's your mess, we don't want him.

Eric wrote:

I agree there is way too much wasteful domestic spending, but when people use terms like "Bush's profligate spending," I must point out that the deficit as % of GDP is *not* at an all-time high, or even at an unusually high level, historically.

I don't think this really makes a meaningful response in terms of why continued deficit spending is a bad thing. Regardless of whether today's deficit spending is higher or lower as a percentage of GDP than, say, the deficits of the 1980s, the continued piling up of new debt upon old debt will continue to drive up tax rates in the future because we have to pay interest year after year on it. In 2004, we paid $322 billion in the Federal budget for interest on our past debt. In 2005, that number went to $347 billion. That is projected to go up every single year from now on until, in 2015, we will be paying $668 billion a year just in interest on past debt. Indeed, it can't go down as long we run higher and higher deficits, it can only go up. We have around 100 million taxpayers in the US, which means that the average taxpayer this year paid $3470 in Federal taxes just to pay the interest on our past debt, and they will pay more than that amount every year into the foreseeable future, in addition to the taxes to pay for the actual budget items in our vastly bloated Federal bureaucracy.

This is exactly why I argue that the notion that Bush has cut taxes is patently absurd. We didn't have a tax cut, we had a tax delay. Our taxes will be higher for the next 30 years (the length of a long term t-bill) to pay the interest on that debt. If we didn't continue to build up more debt, we actually could cut taxes and let taxpayers keep hundreds of billions of dollars, to the great benefit of our economy.

I don't think this really makes a meaningful response in terms of why continued deficit spending is a bad thing.

That isn't what I was responding to. Of course continued deficit spending is a bad thing (although keep in mind, most of the deficit is owed to ourselves, through bonds held by American citizens and businesses). But I was responding to the idea that things are worse under Bush than they've ever been before.

Wake up guys, Bush has been fiscally irresponsible from day 1. Republicans haven't been responsible since the 50-60's. If you really want to get the party back on track, you need to hold their feet to the fire. The only people winning in the repub party now are the religious freaks.

These days, "fiscal responsibility" is just a club that Republicans use to flog programs that they don't like. Despite all of the rhetoric, Republican administrations always seem to run up huge deficits.

We liberals and progressives told you back in the 2000 election, that Bush was dangerous, ignorant and irresponsible, and that he would be a disaster for this country.

I would much prefer to have been proven wrong. But, here it is: we told you so.

If the debt is domestically held, it is a form of income redistribution from mostly middle class taxpayers to the wealthy who hold the debt. If the debt is foreign held, it is a danger to our national security. Which is better?

Well, the domestic rich folks are easier to get at when the mobs gather with the torches and pitchforks.

I'm old enough to remember when George Bush said that the notion you could simultaneously cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget was "voodoo economics." Of course, that was Bush I, when he was campaigning against Ronald Reagan in 1980. Since then, the Bushies have got religion and convinced themselves that "deficits don't matter" because "in the long run we'll all be dead," and that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 is "fuzzy math."

It's nice to see that Repubs of the fiscally conservative variety are finally starting to realized that they've been had. The current regime - the Republicon congress, as well as the White House - don't give a damn about controlling spending, long term fiscal health for the nation, or protecting the middle class. They are robber barons, pure and simple, who use the federal purse to enrich their ilk, while throwing enough bones to the dogs who vote for them to make them think they're loved and cared for.

Look no farther than the no-bid contracts in New Orleans these days to see if anyone in the regime has ten seconds to spend thinking about how best to use public funds to serve the public interest.

Never in my life have i seen such a ruthless money grab, and zero concern about fiscal health. With the deficit running at a dangerous I'm wondering when is conservatism is going to kick in. There are no conservatives in power, at least not any type of conservatism that I know. I left the Republican party until the conservatism comes back to it, and that might be never. I'm no fan of tax and spend, but I'm less a fan of spend as much as you want for some very expensive policies and then ignore the obvious ways to pay for them. Katrina aside, we already had an expensive war that is financed by borrowing from foreign governments. Now with Katrina, we have a reconstruction at home that will run into the hundreds of billions and still no fiscal responsibility. Accountability is nonexistant, since the structure of the no-bid contracts allows for massive waste and fraud. This is not conservatism, nor is it capitalism, both of which we could use some of. No, this is greed.
I wuld like to hear no more about intelligent design or the pledge of allegiance until there is a plan to pay off this debt.

(although keep in mind, most of the deficit is owed to ourselves, through bonds held by American citizens and businesses).

Less than 56% of the United States' $8 trillion dollar debt is now held domestically (i.e. "owed to ourselves"). Japan and China alone hold 13% of our debt ($1 trillion -- we only owe Social Security $1.7 trillion, which we've already said we're not going to pay back).

What's worse, the percentage of US debt held domestically vs. foreign is dropping. Foreign interests are buying about $800 billion dollars a year of NEW US debt.

greg