I don't know if you've seen it, but Jay Bookman's column in today's AJC is just grand. He poses a question..."Is the GOP fiscally conservative?" I think it's a valid question, and there is no question that the Republican Party, led by George W. Bush, has become a big government, free spending party...but I digress.

Here are Bookman's points:

An amazing chunk of that $9 trillion debt — well over $3 trillion — has been incurred just since Bush took office in 2001. All told, 73 percent of our total national debt has been racked up under our last three Republican presidents: President Bush, his father and President Reagan.

Such numbers can admittedly be misleading, because they don't take into account factors such as inflation and economic growth. According to economists, the better way to assess a nation's financial picture is to measure its national debt as a share of its gross domestic product.
[...]
So when you chart the rise and fall of national debt not in raw numbers, but as a percentage of GDP, what does it show?

It indicates that under every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter, the national debt as a percentage of our GDP has fallen significantly, meaning our longterm financial situation has improved.

And under every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, the national debt as a percentage of GDP has risen significantly, meaning our long-term financial situation has declined.

I agree that budget deficits are bad for the country, but Bookman's column would have done some good if he advocated a balanced budget amendment instead of making it a long rant against Reagan and Bush.

Bookman also makes the statement, "So the evidence of the historic record is indisputable. Under the classic definition of fiscal conservatism, Democrats are better stewards than Republicans."

Before I begin...if we are going to start going by the "classical definition" of words, does that mean that us lovers of liberty can have the word liberal back?

No doubt what he is saying is that Democrats will raise taxes in order to balance a budget. If you want to get all historical, a little more than 40 years ago the highest individual tax was 91%. Kennedy managed to cut that down 65%, much like the Bush tax cuts, Kennedy pushed for tax cut using Keynesian rhetoric ("economic stimulation"). Democrats have historically played thieves when it came to taxes. I seriously doubt that the taxpayers of our country want to revert back to draconian tax rates so Democrats can pay for their welfare state.

Bookman either forgets or overlooks a few things:
- Congress holds the purse strings: Bookman passively writes, "Of course, Congress also plays an important role in spending decisions. " Ultimately, the President can sign or veto any spending bill or piece of legislation. Ronald Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills in his first three years in office...and it wasn't because Congress spent too little money.

- Non-Defense Discretionary Spending: Reagan proposed and managed to get spending cuts in nine cabinet level departments in his first three years. Reagan is the only President in the last forty years to cut non-defense spending (not including entitlements).Consequently, the largest increase in spending during Reagan's term in office came in the first three years. As the Cato Institute notes, non-defense discretionary spending decreased by more than 13%. The spending increase that Reagan is responsible for is was for national defense, you know...something that is actually mentioned in the Constitution. Cato puts Reagan's yearly spending increase at 1.9%. By comparison, Carter oversaw a year increase in spending of 2.4%, Johnson 4.6%. What about Bush? 8%.

- No mention of entitlements: The part I find most intellectually dishonest about Bookman's column is his failure to mention entitlement spending, which currently is just over 8% of GDP. By 2020 entitlement spending, largely passed by Democratic Congresses and signed into by Democratic Presidents, will consume 12% of GDP, and nearly 18% by 2040. The Heritage Foundation puts the average yearly budget between 18% to 20%. Heritage predicts that by 2050, federal spending as a percentage of GDP