Aeiiii. Will it never end? Nixon was not conservative.

He was by Ms Noonan's measure.

Oh good grief. Will Republicans ever abjure root canal policies?

Do you guys ever think about the enormous amount of energy that is expended trying to keep all the lefties on the left side and all the righties on the right side? The hands make no sense. Especially when it comes to government spending. As a percentage increase, budgets under republican presidents have always been bigger, since Johnson. The right and the left make no sense.

Johnson was a republican?

ex:

It takes none. Some prefer more security -- women in particular -- and some more liberty -- men in general. The divide is entirely organic and permanent.

One wonders what type of treatment a current Republican would get at a dinner party in Manhattan if, after spotting Peggy Noonan, he told her that Reagan raised taxes at a greater percentage than any president since FDR (TEFRA in 1982).

Sometimes, Peggy, it's not about you.

Allright, my opinion of President Bush has gone up. It's all about grinding down on the tax rate. Everything else follows from that. And the reality is, we're not going to get any suddent, massive reductions. Ratcheting down is the best achievable result and it looks like Bush is delivering on that.

Peggy didn't particularly like Bush's 2nd Inaugural, either.

But would she enjoy a Jesse Helms presidency? Or perhaps Ron Paul? Or Jeff Sessions? Or Rudy? Or even Tom DeLay?

Reagan was larger than life because he paved the way after the miasma of the 1970s. The GOP was left for dead in 1975, but by the 1978 mid-terms, things were moving. Once Reagan shoved Bush aside in the primaries, he (and the movement) was on his way.

George W. Bush is not larger than life, except when you consider his patience, his willingness to take the arrows every single day, and his strategery. He has shown the humility he spoke about in the 2000 campaign, both as personally as President and as the leader of the free world. If LBJ had been President on 9/11, we would probably have killed 500,000 Middle Eastern civilians. Not very humble, eh? But Bush has tried to change the paradigm, and his best attribute has been his firm (and quiet) resolve. He hasn't blustered (like Nixon might have), and he hasn't patted himself on the back, like Clinton certainly would have.

The chattering class thinks Bush's talk about 'humility' is just blather. But they wouldn't know humility if it bit them right on the nose.

My 3 cents:
W is viewed as super conservative only because the left hates him because he believes in God and they are sneering elitist atheists.

OJ is entirely correct to focus on the GDP ratios. When an economy is growing as fast as ours, federal budgets always do. It is remarkable to me that W kept the spending so low given the proclivities he demonstrated as TX governor. He loves to grease the skids with the legislature.

Reagan admired FDR. He was willing to spend like his hero. We righties revere him for believing in America enough to cast the Cold War in moral terms and try to win it and for lowering taxes. Cutting spending was never his main goal. His token efforts were intended to reach out to the base.

I liked Bush in 1998 for 3 reasons: 1) I thought he would take on the trial lawyers, 2) reach out to black voters who, based on my interaction with them, ought to vote republican a lot more than they do absent race baiting from the dems and 3) he'd have a more serious foreign policy instead of series of bombing campaigns. I figured high federal spending was the price I had to pay to get these 3 things. I already knew the Republican congress wasn't going to stem it.

JAB, Exactly, the serious foreign policy is the most important aspect of GWB's term. Anyting else is bonus.

Well you guys aren't Keynesian, but you're honest.

Oddly enough Reagan was a Keynsian but always said nasty things about him. But Reagan would probably pass for a rough keynsian - much like FDR. I did not know Reagan was a FDR admirer. I bet there were some things he didn't like. But I think I can guess what he did like too. Thats interesting.

Keynes misunderstood. It's unimportant that governmen spend money, but vital that it not take too much.

"Well you guys aren't Keynesian, but you're honest"
Right. The point is?

My hope is fading. Guess away. We trust you exclab, but you must verify, just as Raoul requested.

An economic train wreck I say, one with Hooverish consequences! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Since we're headed into an era where productivity will explode, it might make sense to allow the Federal budget deficit to drift up to maybe 10% of GNP, by cutting taxes some more.
If we cut taxes mostly for families with children, we net two birds with one throw.

"Drift" because we don't want to dump too much fuel on the economic fire at once; we'd just get scorched by inflation.

If we were letting taxpayers keep an extra $ 700 billion a year by 2012, it would be well worth paying back $ 3 trillion by 2042, especially if we mandate that $ 200 billion a year must be deposited in individual retirement accounts.
Then we'd have three objectives satisfied, robust economic growth, pre-funded retirement, and ample capital for business growth.

Better yet, high budget deficits might cause the U.S. dollar to lose more strength internationally, leading to higher U.S. employment, and much higher oil prices.
That would stimulate the production and use of home-grown alt fuels, as well as increasing production from North America's vast reserves of petroleum.

Now, some might object that we've had high oil prices, a weak currency, and high budget deficits before, and that nothing good came of it.

However, if we look past the temporary disruptions that those factors caused, we can see that high oil prices gave way to an oil glut and historically low real prices for oil, and that economic growth caused the budget deficits to narrow.

Further, since our productivity growth is higher now than it was a few decades ago, the disruptions would be smaller now, and the benefits gained larger.

Noam: 10 percent strikes me as too high. Between 3 to 5 percent is just fine; in fact, it's so trivial that it's not even Keynesian. Given that economic growth is so solid; that the non-intragovernmental national debt is so low; and the dangers of surpluses so great, we can keep on going for the foreseeable future with deficits on that level.

As for left and right, they are certainly not perfect but they are perfectly adequate for describing the near-center of American politics, in which so much is tacitly agreed. Obviously, if you follow Pat Buchanan around the corner you end up next to his new best friends, the communists, and the whole thing falls apart. But, back nearer the center, it's useful. For example, the right is stupid, and Noonan's article certainly demonstrates that.

Peggy's always been a bit of a romantic, none more so than the man for whom she built her reputation on as a speech writer. Add to that her seeing Reagan as something of a father figure and Bush as not just a contemporary, but as someone who didn't earn his way into an advisory role in her father's administration, and you get a situation where Noonan has no qualms about glorifying the time period she was a major part of.

To be fair to Reagan, he did start from a lower base than Bush did, coming in after Carter whereas Bush followed Clinton, who had mostly given in to the GOP Congress. But people like Peggy tend to banish Reagan's record tax hike from their minds, or the selection of moderate Republican justices like O'Connor and Kennedy, whenever they think about the actions of his administration.

noonan is a light weight and not worth reading. she should be working for harlequin.

David Cohen:

We're at the bottom end of the 3% - 5% range right now, and will be at the top end within the next twenty years, even if we cut defense spending as much as Orrin thinks that we will.

Since the thought is to provide more stimulus than we're on track to do anyhow, we'd have to go to deficits of at least 7% of GNP, maybe 8%.

Shouldn't the Congress bear a good portion of the blame on spending since they're the ones that vote on the spending bills? I think blaming Bush for all of it is a cheap cop out.

CP:

Blame? Given our extraordinary economy and quality of life, don't you mean credit?

I learned about the GDP difference thanks to Annanberg's Fact Check. I wondered when someone else would notice.

Shouldn't the Congress bear a good portion of the blame on spending since they're the ones that vote on the spending bills? I think blaming Bush for all of it is a cheap cop out.

Thank you CP
That's why I love the concept of Porkbusters. It focuses on those who make these bills that end up on W's table and not just bash the guy

Agree with CP. You can criticize the lack of vetoes but basically it is Congress' job to appropriate the money.
They've fallen down on the job. That reflects on us as voters and on them as legistlators.

One issue does not a conservative make. Pundits like to opine on Mr. Bush's conservatism but rarely do they point to anything beyond spending.

Washington:

Of course not, if Mr. Bush is somewhat more conservative than Reagan on spending, he's infinitely more so on entitlements, trade and social issues. Can't expect folks like Noonan and Bartlett, to point out that they worked for the liberal Republican.

You are ignoring the impact of defense spending on these statistics. Yes Reagan was a big spender in more ways than one but the bulk of the reason why the stats show this is defense spending. Similarly Clinton was president at probably the easiest time to be President in a 100 years because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yes, that's the bulk of W's too. He's had to raise defense spending by 2% of GDP.

It is difficult to overrely on GDP metrics since the definition and composition of GDP has changed over the past 20 years. In addition, the federal government has passed on many expenses to the states via unfunded mandates. And, of course, much of the GDP impact is being passed on to our children and grandchildren via borrowing to finance the current budget and tax cuts.

cliff:

No, it isn't. The total federal debt is rather minimal and given how low interest rates are--though higher than justifiable--it only makes sens for us to be borrowing at that rate while earning huge returns on our $50+ trillion in household net worth. Why would we repay the debt?

I don't know if I'd take the same position with Reagan.

First, you have to take into account who controls Congress - and thus the purse strings.

Reagan presided over a Democratic Congress and, as I recall, vetoed a lot of their spending bills. At least what he could. Reagan was more concerned with ratcheting up defense to push for the coup de gras on the Soviets, while cutting taxes at home, and had to let the Democrats have some things (welfare) in order to get them to agree to defend the country.

You have to remember the context: he came in by beating Carter and those before him who had been ratcheting UP taxes and down on defense spending.

Bush has had a Republican Congress that's addicted to the feifdom-making policies of the Democrats. Bush hasn't just spent on Defense, he's been spending on everything else, and his only "threatened" veto had nothing to do with the budget.

There is no policy that Reagan took that compares to the monstrous, generations-crippling health bill Bush PUSHED through Congress.

Reagan had a GOP Senate and a quiescent House. He didn't veto many spending bills. He raised taxes several times. Carter had already commenced the Defense increases.

Bush, of course, came to office after the last three presidents had all been increasing taxes.

The Congress Reagan had to deal with did not require 60 votes for every bill, which Democrats now use to stop many major reforms.

Nearly the entire increase in spending under Bush consists of defense spending.

You're right though, Reagan gotr an extension of SS that hardly reformed it at all--though the retirement age increases were helpful. Bush's Medicare reform--which features HSAs--is certainly the more historic and woill serve us for generations, though eventually the HSAs needd to be made universal and mandatory.

When Reagan entered office spending was at 21.7% of GDP vs 21.2% of GDP when he left. By contrast, Bush entered office with spending at 18.4% which is now 19.8%.

Like you, I'm not too sure if we should judge how "conservative" a President is based on these numbers. But it really doesn't make sense just to compare the endpoint numbers, and imply this makes Bush a better Conservative. The yardstick shouldn't be the contextless static number, but by how many spending was reduced.

Jacob:

Yes, as the WoT ends W will be able to get his numbers down too.

In the final analysis, the only federal programs that matter are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

By vitue of being elected president on a platform of partial privitization of the third rail of politics (Social Security); GWB has done more for the cause of reducing federal spending than all presidents combined.

This hysteria of spending is driven by moonbat conservative pundits who have nothing to contribute beyond their parasitic nature to productive society.

I just finished my taxes and they were never lowered by Noonan, Bartlett, Coulter, Malkin, Will....ect

However, the Hertitage Foundation calls every other night to suck more money from my pocket.

Gogwb, while I think i probably agree with your basic thrust, I think you have an important point wrong.

You correctly point out that federal entitlement programs are the real problematic spending (ss, medicare/caid) because they are basically locked in to increase each year unless proactive measures are taken to trim them. Which if there is one rare thing in this world, it is a politician with a spine sufficient to cut entitlement spending.

All other spending is descretionary (even defense spending to a large degree, and can be cut substantially as Clinton showed) and therefore not as hard for our calcium challenged politicians to cut as needed.

My main gripe with your post is that you give Bush a pass on his perscription medicine entitlement. I would be willing to give him a pass too, if he had actually succeeded in passing any ss privitization laws, as is, G.W. has surpassed his fathers flub on the Americans with Disabilities Act, with his drug entitlement.

And Do Not get me started on "No Child Left Behind".

Bush is no fiscal conservative, regardless of GDP numbers, a spend happy congress is exacerbating the situation instead of checking it as it might have in the previous administration.

Quiet frankly, i feel very betrayed by Republicans who i have consistently voted for. That is not to say that I would ever vote for a Democrat, just that i doubt I will ever vote for another incumbent again unless they are the real deal, proactive fiscal conservative.

Joel

I understand your fustrations. However, the focal point has to be one of perspective. On the face of it, adding a $400 to $800 billion drug benefit during a period when we will produce $140 trillion of GDP does seem like alot.

However, as Gingrich correctly points out, the key is how does one move from the single payer model to an individually financed market based solution.
In this case the ultimate advantage is to start the process of setting the stage for a multiple choice benefit option that will be able to transfer to private providers and financed from private IRA style accounts. To the best of my knowledge, even the Gipper had no real initiative in this area.

Also, I just returned from a party, where I was talking to three pinko public scholl teachers. They are retiring beacause the demands for performance required by "No child left Behind" was too much for them. I may not agree with all of it but until GWB, Republicans were never even it the game on this issue. Furthermore, if you firmly believe in the voucher option; do you think this will ever happen without a wholesale conservative shift in the judicial branch?

I bring this up because it appears that too many conservatives think that changing programs like entitlements and education is just going to happen because we suddenly have Rebublican majorities. This is a long term program that will require years of ruling majorities to change. Furthermore, the President cannot do this by himself. It's going to require incredible effort from all parts of the conservative movement but it can be done.

On the other hand, if too many conservatives insist upon being offended; maybe a return to the status of permanent minority is the better option.

I get a chuckle every time I think of it: Bush ran in 2000 as the "Compassionate Conservative." Everyone knows what the word "compassionate" represents in politics, and it ain't emotionalism. Bush was telling anyone who could read his campaign slogan that he was going to spend money on stuff like NCLB and drug benefits. Both his opponents and his supporters thought he was lying. [chuckle!]

Actually, a lot of his supporters were hoping that the Congress would have the guts to rein him in, so that "Compassionate Conservatism" would be nothing more than a slogan to make the mushy moderates feel less bad about voting for Bush. There's nothing new with a President proposing programs that get shot down by Congress, even one controlled by his own party. We just never expected that not only would the Congress roll over, but join in on the fun.

Oh, well, live and learn.

gee, too bad my house only doubled in value because GWB was in office. even though that is like 1000X more money than any prescription benefits will cost me, i am still upset. good thing i have a diaper on. join the dems, they are the sob sister party.

TOW

Why don't you use some of that value to buy copies of Bruce Bartlett's book for the complainers.

Maybe they can read in bed with Andrew Sullivan.

As a regular here pointed out a few days ago on another post, the drug program's supposed to cost about $8 trillion in 75 years.

He ran the #s based on a conservative 2.5% increase in GDP over the same time which puts US at a $2.2 QUADrillion GDP.

What's $8 trilion?

Besides, we have the highest corp tax rate of the OECD, we need to get that down.

Mr. Mackey:

SS reform is going to require 60 GOP seats in the Senate but the Medicare Reform bill not only got the best possible deal on the inevitable drun entitlement but the HSAs that the putative conservatives in Congress had failed to pass for ten years. NCLB got public school vouchers and when we get to 60 seats they're easy enough to make applicable to private and parochial schools too.

We'll never have a fiscally conservative president after Coolidge--the Depression ended small government.

Orrin,

Thank you for interjecting some sanity into the budget debate.

All of the "to hell with GOP" budget hawks need to keep the following in mind -

Emotional outbursts about how much you hate the GOP for their perceived inability to reduce spending might make you feel righteous, but it does tremendous damage to your cause. The DNC is the party of "here, let daddy fix that". They promise more and more and more in effort to buy votes because they know it bears fruit. It takes a tremendous amount of work to educate people why this is bad. Democrats will point out that "the rich" should be paying their "fair share", conjuring images of Robin Hood and citing "Christian" principles of giving to those less fortunate. They're very good at it and they haven't relented in their quest regardless of whether they are in the minority or majority. They also have the main stream media to carry their water for them and dump it on us. We have to explain economic principles and cite boring math and numbers to show why we are right and explain the dangers of socialism. We carry our own water. So if trashing the GOP makes you feel better, consider the alternative. It won't get better when the other side gets the power they lust after. It will get worse.

Many of the largest growing programs in the federal budget are indeed on "auto-pilot", these are also the hardest to cut as they sit on political hot buttons. Cuts to ANY part of a budget comprised of things people complained into existence or that came about because of a legitimate need are going to invoke the ire of some group or make one the target of slanted political smears. Keep that in mind when expecting the GOP to completely reign in spending with 48 - 50 true conservatives in the Senate and similar composition of the House. Their attempt to make a positive change to the social security program is a perfect example of what happens when you have a minority party that obstructs and a tepid majority that favors your position. The answer is not to get pissed off at the ones that gave their best effort and give up. The answer is to put more like them in office to overcome the obstructionist minority and make up for the few RINOs that refused to close ranks.

Citing hard numbers in order to prove how terrible the current budget woes are supposed to be is foolish. The GDP is indicative of our nation's collective earning potential. 350 billion!?! OH NO!!! Who cares if it is roughly the same percent of GDP as it has been for previous years when there are "billions" involved? Keep things in context.

Remember all the complaints about the unprecedented pork? Citizens against government wastes in the "Pig Book" for 2005 found 27 BILLION dollars worth of pork in the Federal Budget! BILLION! Well, that's 1.35 percent of the entire federal budget or .22 percent of GDP. Should just throw them all out over numbers like that? Or, ya know, we could keep our heads, and quit giving ammunition to Democrats who will NEVER have to answer for their words or behavior, never make good on their present faux budget hawking and will in fact do the exact opposite after whipping up hysteria against their hated enemies in the GOP.

Ever wonder what the budget deficits and national debt of Japan is? Germany? France? Look it up. In both cases their dwarfs ours. Their problems stem from their socialist policies and the government depence they've created. They choose to deal with this (as a Democrat majority would) by raising taxes which stifles growth and makes the problem worse.

If we don't bring the debate back to facts and comparisons that are apt, hyperbole will rule the day and the only one's that will be happy with the results will be the ones that you've fought hardest against.

The Federal Budget is not the only issue that the GOP and DNC differ on. Make it the single issue and lose on all the rest.

When conservatives volunteer to assist the Border Patrol in preventing ANOTHER 20 million illegal aliens from coming to collect their welfare, food stamps, WIC coupons, and section 8 housing vouchers, President Bush calls them "vigilantes".

When conservatives object to his nomination of a vacuous, bubble brained crony to the Supreme Court, they are called "sexist" and "anti-Christian"

When conservatives object to turning over our port operations to a gangster Arab dictatorship which denies Israel's right to exist, funds Hamas, and pays a bounty to the families of the demented murders of Jewish women and children, they are called "nativist" and "anti arab".

When none of this works, they try to prop up President Nanny State by denigrating the memory of Ronald Reagan.

Which means the've got nothing.

Among the things they have nothing of would be honor and integrity.

I think that blindly supporting Republicans merely because they are "better" than Democrats is false logic. If the Republican Party becomes a big enough tent to gain a 60% majority, it will still be a bunch of RINO's who will vote as if they are Democrats.

This is exacerbated when the current batch of Republicans rule like moderate spending Democrats instead of promoting conservative agendas. Democrats run as conservatives or moderates and rule as liberals. Republicans do the same thing to a lesser extent. There are no stealth conservative candidates running as moderates or liberals and then ruling with a conservative bias.

I am of the opinion that there is maybe an outside chance of things getting better if enough conservative judges get placed on the federal benches. Otherwise, only fundamental reforms can change a system devolving into stratified party elitists and de facto aristocracy.

Reforms such as removing much of the compensation that congressmen and senators receive. Banning any person elected or staffing congressional or executive branch offices from ever lobbying congress. outlawing campaign finance reform measures and returning to a pre nixonian system with perhaps a beefed up regulatory bureacracy whose only mandate is to make contributions transparent and public, not to limit or regulate them in any way.

all the spending, all the entitlements, all the crap that comes out of Washington is merely a symptom of a deeper ill, human nature. If you put a pile of manure in one spot you will get flys. If you put power and money in one spot, you get politicians, the only way to check this to some degree is to limit the money and decentralize the power.

First Eeeevil Bush calls volunteer border patrollers "vigilantes". That's bad. Let's beat him severly! What about suing them like the ACLU did, is that worse? Maybe granting them all those benefits and more (like Hillary Clinton is proposing) is more your speed?
Then that Eeeeeeeevil Bush went and nominated someone to the Supreme Court that you didn't like! The bastard! Even labled you because you threw a fit. Another 40 lashes! It's like he nominated Ruth Ginsberg! Right? Maybe lashing him isn't good enough! Then he had the audacity, after allowing security minded folks ample review, to let an arab company that provides material support in our war on terror in the form of training for the new Iraqi army (among other things) to LEASE TERMINALS at a few ports. DEMONIC!!! Why isn't he a bloody pulp already? Maybe if he had gone to Saudi Arabia and given a speech saying that we had done "unforgiveable" things to arabs after 9/11, that would be more to your liking? But it seems that, when confronted with facts in the form of numbers comparing Reagan and Bush budget deficits, some of his supporters ("they") have really crossed your line!! Now WE have no "honor" or "integrity"? :) Are there hyperbole dietary supplements I'm unaware of? No one's dissing Reagan, Karl. He did a great job. We're just putting things in proper context using facts and logic and stuff.

Joel,

Who in this discussion advocated "blind" support for Republicans? One can see their faults and support them for their strengths (which they most certainly have). Beyond that one can see their faults and see the far greater faults in the opposition and support them as well.

How do you figure that we will get nothing but more RINOs if we surpass 60 percent? Where is the cut off point? Why is that the point where we can get nothing more than RINOs?

Elections are not the entirety of political expression. We have to advocate our positions better than the opposition as well. We always work behind the 8 ball thanks to the Democrat Main Stream Media, but we are leveling the playing field now with the internet.

Congress recently passed an law protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits by people who blame them rather than the person who used their product in a crime. That is but one example of what we have achieved with a Republican majority. That would NOT have happened with donks in charge. It would have been something quite the opposite. Democrats aren't even talking about gun control any more. Sit it out on election day and they'll reconsider their timid posturing.

Posted by: The Valiant Elephant at March 19, 2006 3:00 AM

Valiant Elephant,

You advocate blind support, you act as if no one who wants to advance a conservative agenda has any choice but to grit thier teeth and vote Republican, that is tantamount to blind support. Why dont you advocate for an off year election boycott, put the fear of losing power into the Republicans, see if they can respond appropriately and if so, advocate for electing them. Instead its your steady drumbeat of vote Republican or die at the hands of a Democrat majority. The whole reason the
Republicans are so screwed up is that they dont think theres a chance in hell they will lose power to Democrats.

I think the cut off point is below 50%, considering how many Rino's are already in the party. I think that letting Rino's such as Lincoln Chaffee enjoy the party support he does, only makes the situation worse. As I stated above, there are no stealth conservatives. The nature of the beast is that freshmen beome more liberal the longer they reside in the beltway, this is partially due to the democrat media.

Your arguments are tantamount to voting for the party that only wants to cut off your foot, instead of the party that wants your whole leg.... I prefer the third option. you reply, that my third option guarantees that I lose my leg, I reply that your first option guarantees I lose my foot. and thus we play the two party tango so convienently reinforced by the power elite. Maybe we should sacrifice our legs if it means our children can keep thier feet.

To Valiant Elephant;

If all you're claiming now is that GWB is more "conservative" than Al Gore, Ruth Ginsburg, and the ACLU, I agree!

I'd also agree that Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini were more "civil libertarian" than Josef Stalin or Adolph Hitler.

Seriously, If you wish to defend the Bush presidency on what you consider to be it's merits, have at it.

I just think it silly and unsupportable to insist that he is a conservative.

Karl:

He's not a conservative as defined by y'all--just more conservative than Ronald Reagan--that's the point.

Mr. Mackey:

It's not about your leg, it's about cutting off your nose to spite your face. If the GOP had 60 seats in the Senate SS Reform would have passed already. Giving them less isn't going to achieve anything you want except "teach people a lesson." It's the archetypal selfish immaturity of the libertarian.

Karl:

They aren't vigilantes--they're racist crackpots.

Opposition to Miers was largely elitist and anti-Evangelical, which is why the neocons and libertarians led it.

The port issue is just anti-Arab hysteria,

Reagan was a great president but essentially a New Dealer.

Mr. Mackey:

Did the New Deal/Great Society Democrats fail by becoming a big enough tent to preserve their gains for seventy years?

The GOP is going to become big enough to lure Latinos, who are socially conservative. This will drive nativists, isolationists and protectionists into the Democratic party. It's an excellent trade.

It funny OJ you call it cutting your nose off to spite your face, then spray epithets such as immature libertarian, this is the blind devotion I speak about.

I voted republicans into the majority, the very least they could do is to promote the conservative agenda at least as much as they did as the minority party. I am not going to support a party who had succumbed to spending thier way to continued power, sacrificing any semblence of an ideology or principle for the sake of continued power.

It called holding people accountable for what they say and do, you should check into it.

OJ, you dont seem to grasp my arguments very well, just one of many points which you misunderstand is the fact that I fully expect the Republicans to gain a New Deal Democrat like hold on power. But then they will be New Deal Democrats in fact if not in name. I dont vote for Democrats. But have at it, blindly support your lovely party even as it twists and corrupts your original ideals into a golem like grasp on the golden ring.

Joel,

It is not tantamount to "blind support" to recognize faults and at the same time recognize the utility of supporting what you (personally) consider to be the lesser of two evils.
I do not believe that Republicans as a whole think they are incapable of "losing power", they only recently attained any sort of prominence in congress. They know damned well it can revert back to what it once was. And the danger is not that they will "lose power", but that they will lose the opportunity to advance their agenda.

Giving Chaffee the boot would be tasty, no doubt. I sure as hell wouldn't expect any self respecting conservative to support him. For all intents and purposes, he's a donk. That's why it's important to single out the RINOs and blame them for their behavior rather than using sweeping generalizations against the whole. Would you argue that there are no conservatives among the elected GOP that you could support?

There is no guarantee that if we "cut off our legs" that our children would "get to keep their feet". We could return to malaise-days from here on out. Ever wonder how some of those hot button spending items got set on auto-pilot?

Posted by: The Valiant Elephant at March 19, 2006 12:22 PM

The conservative agenda:

Limited solely to cutting spending? No. If that is the only issue that makes you a conservative, perhaps it is your conservative creds that should be called into question rather than W's. I already provided at least one example of why to vote conservative beyond budget-hawking when I brought up the law defending fire-arm manufacturers from lawsuits involving the illegal use of their products. Beyond that, there is - The War on Terror, Victory in Iraq, Abortion Regulation, Tax Cuts (those darned ol' GOPers delivered there, didn't they?), Social Security Reform, limited government regulation of the free market, regulation related to the internet that would be front and center in a donk congress (they HATE blogs or any other forum that allows their ideas to be openly challenged), etc. Can you look past a lack luster (would you grant they could have performed worse?) performance on spending reduction in order to promote the rest of the conservative agenda? Or are you a single issue voter?

Posted by: The Valiant Elephant at March 19, 2006 12:30 PM

Mr. Mackey:

Yes, over their coming decades in power the GOP will advance their Third Way agenda, just as Democrats had seven decades to move theirs--there's no hurry.

George W. Bush has done exactly what he said he'd do in office and his successors will do much the same.

This string is so discouraging. We're allowing the media to define the argument by goading us that we're compromising and not keeping the faith pure. This is such nonsense. Bush doesn't have the support in congress, so he's moving on things he can accomplish instead of failing on things he can't.

The argument about supporting people like Chafee is that much as we despise their tactics, they are registered Republicans and that gives us majority status in congress. What's the alternative? The votes go the same way, but we have minority status? Is that politically pure but suicidal position to be preferred?

Pork barrel spending is the way business is done. Each supports the others pet project and is least of our problems. Cuts in entitlements or cabinet positions must wait until there is a solid majority that can reliably counted on to vote with the president. It would be great if that would happen in November, but if not, he'll just have to keep on trucking.

Bush has indeed worked miracles and although I'm not religious, I can't help but wonder if he's had divine assistance. Cut him some slack and let him worry about keeping us safe instead of concerning himself with petty nonsense like overspending or proving he's a real conservative.

erp:

It's just libertarians and nativists. They fit in the small tent but less well in the large.

So government doesn't tax as much as percent of GDP as twenty years ago; it doesn't spend as much as a percent of GDP as X number years ago... Wake UP! Government should fulfill it limited responsibliites per the constitution, period. All forms of government, federal, state and local, have expanded far beyond their initial powers, are grossly bloated, obscenely invasive and omnipresent. They need hacked back like a nefarious weed.

Mr. Burrows:

Yup, that's the mantra that gets the Libertarian Party 1% every four years.

Yup, started a revolution in 1776, guess your a
Tory.

Mr. Burrows;

I am a Tory, but the first thing the rebels did was create a government. Once they won they created another. When it proved too weak they created a powerful central government. Federalism was dead by 1789.

aog is about the only libertarian i know that doesn't sound like a rand fan in his parents' basement, shouting at the tv and working on a better version of the constitution.

And he's a vicarious theocon.

I read once that Bill Armstrong (R-CO) was in a high dudgeon in early 1981, and wanted to vote against raising the debt ceiling. Strom Thurmond put his hand on Armstrong's shoulder, and told him "We are the majority now, and we have to act like it".

At first I was disappointed, but Armstrong wasn't knocking Thurmond - he was showing that under the circumstances, voting for the increase was the right thing to do. And no one is going to call Bill Armstrong a softie. He was probably one of the wisest Senators we have had in recent years, and one who walked away from what was a lifetime seat.

The problem with running deficits like we have is not that they are too big (although some years are worse than others), it is that an economic downturn in the future (for whatever reason) will be sharp enough (like 1973-75 or 1979-82) that we will fall far behind in the ability to grow ahead of the curve. The latest recessions (1990/91, the slight burp in 1994, and 2000-2002) were very mild in comparison. And just imagine if the Democrats are setting policy?

jim:

Except that the debt could be doubled and it still wouldn't be extraordinary in a time of national emergency.

And that's if measured against GDP. Measure it against Household Net Worth and it's absurdly low.

Bush is opposed by "neocons"?

Do you know how to make a neocon?

You start with a big government liberal democrat.

Fold in a more muscular(aka pre McGovern dem) internationalist foriegn policy.

Add a big dose of amoral, no questions asked "free" trade with tyrants. Mix it up and what do you have?

George Bush. President Neocon.

Karl:

Yes, that's why neocons oppose Bush--he's a theocon and they dislike the moral component,m particularly of his social policy, but also as it applies to foreign affairs beyond Israel.

There doesn't seem to be any coherent reason why a president's conservatism should be judged by how much he spends, but if you're using that as your yardstick then Mr. Reagan was the most liberal president since FDR during WWII and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are the most conservative since Nixon

Under Reagan, non-defense domestic discretionary spending went from 4.5% of GDP in '80 to 3.1% of GDP in '88.

Under GWB, non-defense domestic discretionary spending has increased from 3.1% of GDP in '00 to 3.5% of GDP.

Data here.

That's the clearest contrast between the 2. Both of them took over from Democratic administrations. If conservatism means anything spending-wise, it means spending a smaller share of GDP on non-defense discretionary programs than a Democrat would. Reagan did that and GWB has not.

Foo: Using your data, let's compare 1985 with 2005:

As a percent of GDP
       Revenue Spending Deficit Publicly Held Debt
1985  17.7    22.8    5.1      36.3
2005  17.5    20.1    2.6      37.4

Now, it's nuts in the first place to try to beat Bush with Reagan or Reagan with Bush. But based on these numbers it is impossible to pick out one record as clearly more conservative. What should be clear is how incredibly small our national debt is, particularly when compared to Japan (150% of GDP).

Sorry for the bad formatting, but it should be comprehensible.

David,

Indeed, let's compare those '85 and '05 numbers, bearing in mind the situation their predecessors left them.

In '80 there was already a 2.7% of GDP deficit, so Reagan had added an extra 2.4% of GDP to the deficit by '85.

In '00 there was a surplus of 2.4% of GDP, so Bush has accomplished a net 5% of GDP swing from surplus to deficit.

Anyway, by responding with more overall budget numbers, you're ignoring my point about defense vs. nondefense discretionary spending. Reagan added to the deficit in spite of a decrease in non-defense discretionary spending as a share of GDP. Bush increased non-defense discretionary spending. Are you really claiming that a president that decreases non-defense discretionary spending is no more conservative than one who increases it?

By the way, I double-checked to make sure that homeland security spending increases(which could be construed as defense-ish and therefore conservative) do not fully explain the non-defense GWB increases (I'm not entirely sure whether homeland security is included in defense in those budget numbers- it probably isn't). Homeland security is only about $40 billion a year.

And even if the national debt isn't that big compared to that of some other countries, that doesn't justify adding to it unnecessarily. By doing that, you're still effectively stealing from future generations, unless you're really confident that the extra economic growth you (debatably might be) fostering with lower taxes and the achievements you're accomplishing with the government spending really outweigh the extra debt you're handing off to future generations.

Foo:

Given that we've gotten twenty plus years of economic boom and growing world dominance out of the Reagan/Bush deficits, what conceivable justification is there for cutting them? They work.

oj,

Were you in a coma from '93 to '00? How do you know how things would have played out if there hadn't been 8 years of intervening fiscal responsibility on the part of Clinton?

Anyway, even if things are generally going well over a long period during which deficits keep going up, that doesn't change the fact that the current generation is essentially taking from future generations. In other words, you might be preventing things from being even better for future generations for the sake of your benefit now. Now, you can try to make an argument that the benefits to future generations of a particular deficit spending regime outweigh the added future debt burden (e.g. you could say that extra economic growth that may have resulted from lower taxes will be beneficial in the future, and simultaneous extra defense spending broke the backs of the Soviets, which benefitted future generations). That's a complicated judgment to make, though, and unless you've weighed those kinds of arguments you haven't seriously reflected on whether or not you're shafting your kids and grandkids so you can live it up now.

Foo:

The eight years ended with the Fed cranking interest rates until t forced a slowdown in '00-'01. You seem wedded to the outdated theory rather than the reality that deficits are economically healthy. There's just no objective evidence that the deficit hurts and much that it helps.

oj,

It's somewhat plausible that running some level of deficit is beneficial. I admit I am not an economist. Is that now the consensus among economists, or is that merely the opinion of some economists?

Surely increasing the deficit, rather than, say keeping it steady at a certain percentage of GDP, is not something that can continue to be beneficial indefinitely, can it? And yes, I realize it came down a bit last year. We'll see how long that trend lasts.

Suppose the deficit was at 1% of GDP. Are deficits so great that if we were to jack it up to 2% of GDP (absent any national emergency necessitating such an increase), we're clearly doing future generations a favor? Again, I suppose it's possible, but I'd be interested in hearing the non-economist, layman's explanation why.

Re: the Fed hiking rates and causing a slowdown as Bush started, I'm not sure if that's supposed to be directly on topic regarding the pros and cons of deficits or if you're shifting to a defense of GWB's first term economic record.

Foo:

No, I'm saying that the theory tha deficits are bad requires that lower deficits lower interest rates and higher raise them. The opposite has been true in recent decades.

Debt is good:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1244/

Foo: The Clinton surpluses had very little to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with soaring and unexpected tax receipts fueled by the bubble economy. Both OMB and CBO were taken by surprise by the surpluses, which were not projected.

No matter who was president, the budget would have reverted to deficit after the stock market correction and 9/11.

Deficits at the level we're now experiencing them have little or no macroeconomic effect, and surpluses at about the same level would have a similarly small effect. National debt at our current level is no worry at all, as is amply demonstrated by all the nations that have much larger national debts. However, politically deficits are much better than surpluses.

The question for conservatives when it comes to the federal budget is the same as for when anyone spends anything: what are we getting in return. Bush is doing wonderfully on that metric. .4% of GDP would be worth it just for NCLB which, if Republicans can just stay the course, will destroy public education as we know it over the next ten years. Add to that HSAs, private medicare drug plans, shifting the income tax to a consumption tax and defeating Al Qaeda and George Bush's spending becomes a cheap price to pay.

OJ,

I looked at the review of the MacDonald book. Seemed a little light on hard data.

30-year treasuries were yielding 7.34% when Clinton took over and 5.49% when he left.

http://132.200.33.130/releases/h15/data/Monthly/H15_TCMNOM_Y30.txt

Don't look at plots of deficits vs. what the Fed did with the short rate; it's the longer-term rates that are supposed to be driven up by flooding the bond market with supply.

Now, it's also true that long-term rates came down on the whole under Reagan and they've continued to come down under GWB, but I don't see how you can look at the 30Y treasury rate history under Clinton and conclude that the "opposite" has been true. Generally speaking, with a few minor ups and downs along the way, rates have been falling ever since Volker had jack them up like crazy in the early 80s to whip inflation.

Isn't the "stealing from tomorrow's citizens to benefit today's" argument also a concern quite apart from any supposed effect of deficits on interest rates?

David,

Certainly surpluses of the magnitude that actually occurred were not expected (especially not by guys like John Kasich who predicted economic doom when Clinton raised taxes years before), but I believe with even halfway decent economic performance in the 90s Clinton would have left us with a better (better to me, maybe not to you ;) ) balance sheet than we'd had in decades.

I agree we probably would have had deficits by '02 or '03 had Gore won, but not nearly deficits of this magnitude.

Can we conclude from Japan's economic performance in the past 15 years or so (recent upticks notwithstanding) that debt of that magnitude is no problem?

Just to clarify: I realize Japan's debt is much larger than ours (not saying theirs and ours is the same magnitude). The point is that it's not so clear that it's been no problem for Japan to carry as much debt as it has.

Foo:

Yes, long term rates are down no matter what the Fed does because we're in a global deflation with no end in sight.

Our grandparents "stole" from us and we're thriving. The debt is permanent.

David:

Not even. The entire difference was just the 3%+ of GDP cut in Defense.

oj,

Check out the CBO link I provided in my initial comment again.

Defense spending went from 4.8% of GDP in '92 to 3.0% of GDP in '00, for a difference of 1.8% of GDP.

We went from an on-budget (excluding SS) deficit of 5.5% in '92 to an on-budget surplus of 0.9% of GDP in '00, for a swing of 6.4%.

Obviously the Fed has a certain amount of influence over longer-term rates, but it's far from total control, as Greenspan himself has observed recently.

The WWII generation most certainly did borrow quite a bit from later generations in order to fight WWII, but that was entirely justified, given what the resources it took to fight WWII. And certainly, it didn't cripple us in the late 40s and 50s to be paying that debt off, but I don't think it helped, either.

Foo:

Yes Defense spending went from 6% of GDP under Reagan (roughly the average for the entire Cold War) to about 3% by the time Bill Clinton left office, which was nearly the entire swing from deficit to balanced budget. George Bush has had to raise it back up again to about 5%, or almost our entire deficit.

Of course borrowing money to fight WWII was worth it. The question is why borrowing some money to fight WWIV isn't? Or why borrowing some to transition to privatized SS wouldn't be? The borrowing doesn't make someone not a conservative. The purposes for which they wouldn't borrow do.

Here's a chart of the debt as a percent of GDP. It's interesting to note that the period during which it got under 40% was the worst decade in our history as a nation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg/400px-National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg

If the cost of paying down the debt is the 1970s it ought be avoided at all cost.

One other thing that stands out is how cheaply Reagan and Bush won WWIII & WWIV compared to FDR in WWII.

Well, I just showed you that the swing under Clinton from '92 to '00 was 6.4%, of which even 3% is not exactly "nearly the entire" amount. Bush 41 benefited from defense cuts, too, (defense spending dropped by about 1% of GDP during his term, thanks in part to Cheney) but the deficit went up under him.

Defense spending in '05 was 4.0% of GDP (for an increase of 1.0% vs. '00), not 5.0% of GDP. That's a rather important distinction when the '05 deficit overall was 2.6% of GDP.

Are you even looking at the link I posted (official CBO historical data) or do you find it to be unworthy of your attention?

Yes, the purpose for which presidents would borrow can make one more conservative than the other, which was exactly my point in my original comment: Reagan borrowed to pump up defense spending and in spite of the fact that he cut other discretionary spending, whereas GWB, while increasing defense spending, has also increased other discretionary spending, making him at least a bit less conservative than Reagan.

Why not borrow to fight WWIV? Because recent decades have shown that the economy can grow just fine with govt revenues comprising 18-20% of GDP, so I do not see the need to cut it down to 16% as Bush did.

Foo:

Cutting from 6% of GDP to 3% yielded about $300 billion a year, or the entire deficit.

Your numbers for '05 are just the Defense Dept authorization, not Defense/National Security spending, which is probably over 5% by now.

Reagan propped up the New Deal Welfare State. Not surprising gven that he was a child of the Depression, but not conservative.

W is continuing the transition that Clinton/Gingrich began to a Third Way form of welfare. That is revolutionary, but seves conservative ends, not liberal.

Your final argument, that he ought to raise taxes by 2 to 4% of GDP departs fro any conceivable definition of conservatism.

Foo: 150% is so different from 40% that I'm not sure any conclusions can be drawn. Note, however, that Japan's problems are exactly the opposite of what would be expected from "too much" debt. They're suffering from stagnation and near-zero interest rates, not over-expansion and inflated interest rates.

Yes, divided government may have kept spending down, but that isn't the lesson of the late 90s. According the CBO and OMB the surpluses were five years too early. Last year's deficit projections were off by as much as $100 million and this year's projections are probably equally high.

At the end of the day (literally) I still say that the things we are spending money on are worth the money that we're spending.

(And I don't find the "future generations" thing all that persuasive. The national debt when I was born was about 40% of GDP and it's a few points lower now, so that seems fair. More to the point, it is perfectly fair for future generations to pay for certain current government expenditures from which they benefit. When a business buys a machine, it recognizes the cost of that machine as an expense over the course of its useful life, so that costs are recognized only as revenues are realized (i.e., amortization). If the government's expenses were properly amortized, we'd probably find that we're being too generous to the children.)

oj,

It is true that, given today's GDP of about $12 trillion, a 3% GDP cut would save us $360 billion today.

$300 billion is the entire deficit as of when? Not sure if you're referring to now, or '92, right before Clinton took over. The deficit today is utterly irrelevant to Clinton's budgetary achievements. The deficit in '92 was about $300 billion, but GDP in '92 was $6 trillion, meaning a cut of 3% of GDP then would have saved $180 billion, not even close to all of the '92 deficit. That's not even mentioning the fact that what you originally sought to explain solely by defense cuts was not just balanced budgets but Clinton's surpluses.

I'd be happy to look at a link demonstrating that total defense/security spending is at 5% of GDP now. Might possibly be true. I remain skeptical, though, in light of the fact that the homeland security budget only went from $20 billion to $40 billion or so from pre to post 9/11.

Being accused of departing from any conceivable definition of conservatism is perhaps not as biting a criticism to me as you might guess, given that I'm a registered Democrat who stumbled onto this blog via Kaus. I like to discuss things with people of a wide variety of viewpoints, though.

Foo:

Yes, 3% of GDP is the entire deficit.

The whole war in Iraq isn't even included. It's estimated at a trillion dollars over the last three years.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/intelandterror/article_1096071.php/Defense_spending_approaching_Cold_War_high

I didn't say you're conservative but that your definition of what a conservative is bears no relation to political reality or theory. The relative conservatism of Reagan and Bush is the point of the entire conversation. I agree that if he were a liberal he would raise taxes by 4% of GDP, but the deficit would just be higher.

Foo: According to your own cite, the 2005 deficit was $318 billion, or 2.6% of GDP.

As of March 3, CBO is projecting a fiscal '06 deficit of $371, or about 3% of GDP. I suspect that the actual deficit will be lower.

OK, there are several propositions being debated here:

Proposition 1: Reagan's spending was more characteristically conservative than GWB.

I continue to believe Proposition 1, in light of the fact that Reagan shrank non-defense discretionary spending and GWB has increased it, but I've reached the limit of my interest in debating this one.

Proposition 2: It was not wise for GWB to cut taxes and grow the deficit as much as he has.

OJ asked "why not borrow more to fight WWIV?" and I answered by saying that the economy seems to do just fine with an 18%-20% of GDP tax burden. I did not make this statement in support of Proposition 1 and was not claiming that rolling back GWB's tax cuts was something Reagan or any conservative would do. I was only answering OJ's question.

Proposition 3 (claimed by OJ): The swing from deficits to surpluses under Clinton was entirely due cuts in defense spending.

Proposition 3 does no bear on the truth or falsity of Proposition 1, but it is a claim made by OJ that is obviously false. The size of the deficit today has no relevance to Proposition 3, as Proposition 3 is a claim about what occurred while Clinton was in office. Counting SS, Clinton had a surplus of 2.4% of GDP in '00, so the budget would have been virtually balanced for the first time since the early 1970s even if he had been spending 6% of GDP on defense instead of 3% of GDP.

If he'd been spending 6% on Defense he wouldn't have had a surplus. Defense spending is a waste of money.

OJ, I'm not saying that defense spending is always a waste of money (although if you weren't going to cut it at least somewhat, as Cheney did while SecDef, after the fall of the Soviet Union, I don't know when you'd ever cut it).

Do you admit that you were mistaken when you were claiming that the swing from deficits to surpluses under Clinton was entirely due to defense cuts?

If you believe Clinton was stupid to allow a surplus to occur and should have spent it all on anti-Al Qaeda intelligence and defense, fine, that's a separate debate.

Do you concede you were wrong to claim Proposition 3?

I am saying quite specifically that Defense spending is a waste of money and that nearly the entire swing from deficit to surplus was just a function of cutting defense by 3% of GDP as is the swing back merely a function of adding 3%.

I think Clinton should have cut further, but couldn't because he had no credibility on Defense issues. During peacetime we should get to 1%.

What, according to you, was the magnitude of the swing, in GDP % terms, from deficit to surplus from '92 to '00? Attributing nearly all this swing to defense cuts implies that this swing was not much more than 3% of GDP. If this is what you believe, please cite supporting references.

No, there are a few other factors involved, especially interest rates and service on existing debt, the cost of which the Fed began artificially inflating in 2000. But we're spending almost $700 billion on defense this year, an increase since the Clinton years which does account, along with interest rates, for nearly the entire difference between the 2000 surplus and the 2006 deficit.

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich did nothing to produce a balanced budget/surplus other than to restrain each other. They just happened to be in place for the Peace Dividend. That's why 1992 was the most important presidential election of our lifetimes.

Foo: The implicit assumption behind all your propositions is that, all other things equal, surpluses are better than deficits. In fact, exactly the opposite is true: surpluses are bad, deficits are good.

oj,

1) GWB's debt service costs and average interest rate paid on debt are much lower than they were for Clinton. In the 90s, the goverment paid an average rate of 7.2% on its debt, while in this decade it has paid an average rate of 5.2% on its debt. Look here. The average rate in '00 was 6.4% and in '04 and '05 it was 4.6%.

2) As I've explained before, the Fed has limited control over longer-term rates, which determine the goverment's debt service costs, but even if it did, your thesis doesn't even come close to holding up. The Fed Funds rate was between 4.75% and 6.5% from 8/94 through the end of Clinton's presidency. It was cut below 4.75% by April '01 and went much, much lower, staying around 1% to 2% for a good long while and didn't even break 3% again until last year.

3) In any case, debt service is an outlay that's already accounted for as a government expenditure in the CBO report I initially linked to, so it's not "another factor" but rather already included in the overall conclusion that the swing under Clinton was over 6% of GDP.

4) Even setting aside all the ways in which you're wrong about interest rate costs, what happened after '00 does not bear on the accuracy of your original claim that the swing from deficit to surplus under Clinton could be attributed almost entirely to defense cuts. The swing in the other direction under GWB is another topic, although, as I've explained, you could hardly be more wrong in claiming that the interest rate environment this decade has made it tougher for him.

Yes, interests rates were down considerable by '99 as compared to '92 and then the Fed began raising them again in '00 as we went into surplus. Likewise, the comparison of '92 to '99 suffers because George H. W. Bush had the one time expenditures for the S & L crisis.

But the swing from deficit to surplus is almost entirely accounted for in the cut in Defense spending to under $300 billion by '00. The rest is so marginal as not to matter much. The tragedy is that GHW Bush lost in '92 so that the GOP didn't get credit for the Peace Dividend that Reagan gave us. Had they the Democrats would have reached their natural 40% status by the end of the 90s, instead of by the end of the aughts.

Of course, President McCain and the large majorities in his Republican Congress stand to benefit from the smaller Peace Dividend that follows the WoT, so it all works out for the best anyway.

Cmon, you're not even reading what I wrote. I wasn't comparing rates in '92 to rates in '99. I was comparing rates on average through the entire decade of the 90s to rates on average through the entirety of this decade thus far, which is the relevant comparison to evaluate your claim that GWB's supposedly higher interest rate costs are one reason we've had a such a swing back to deficits after surpluses, and it's obvious from the numbers I cited that what you said was completely false.

I give up. I can only hope that a reader who might come across this via Kaus's blog might come to their own conclusions...

Yes, Bill Clinton didn't average a surplus, he stumbled into one through a confluence of events with which he had nothing to do.

Similarly, W's deficit is just a function of those events changing.

Neither deficit nor surplus says anything about the relative conservatism of the two men who are essentially just Third Way clones of one another. Put W in the 90s and he gets a surplus, put Clinton in the aughts and he runs a deficit. Big deal?

Let us suppose that the average Clinton budget was balanced--neither in deficvit nor surplus, though it was obviously in deficit. Now we are asked to consider why George Bush's budget in 2005 was $331 billion in the red. The answer is that he spent almost exactly that much more on Defense than Bill Clinton had to.