I thought t would be appropriate to devote the last "Fiscal Fitness" column that would be published during the Bush administration to its miserable budget legacy.

This appeared in this morning's Roll Call.

George W. Bush’s Budget Legacy Is Not Pretty
January 20, 2009

Depending on when you read this, the Obama presidency either is just hours away or has just started. That doesn’t mean, however, that we are ready to close the budget books on the Bush administration.

Just like a baseball pitcher taken out of the game with runners still on base, some of what is yet to happen will be charged to the record of President George W. Bush rather than the new person on the mound. As a result, the Bush numbers are not yet complete.

One note of praise for President Bush before I slam him for $8 trillion of fiscal deterioration over eight years.  Up until this year, his budget deficit forecasts were mostly too pessimistic.  Most president's understate future deficit estimates.  Unfortunately, his February Budget, and now his Mid-Session Review, seriously underestimate the deficit for Fiscal Year 2009 and beyond.

First, he continues this myth that Iraq/Afghanistan war spending is an "emergency," a very loaded technical Budget Act term meaning he doesn't have to budget for it on a recurring basis.  This War has always been funded through "emergency" supplemental appropriations once of twice every years since 2003.  You would think a five-year "emergency" would be an oxymoron, and you would be right, anywhere besides Washington.  The War is running just under $200 b. a year.

President Kennedy used to tell aides that anything bad that happened would always be their fault but that he would always take the credit for anything good.

The Bush administration followed that same policy this when it released its midsession review of the budget.  In his remarks at the press conference when the midsession review was release on Monday, Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle very carefully talked about the "bipartisan growth package" that increased the deficit so much this year and that "Democrats are lining up to bust through the President's budget...seeking to add billions in extra spending to the regular appropriations bills, which will drive up the deficit even further."  His statement shows clearly that the Bush administration is following the Kennedy plan with absolute precision: there is no indication that it feels any responsibility for the miserable fiscal situation it is leaving the country.

It says more about me than I should probably admit, but back in 2000 I found the  prospect of paying off the national debt to be very exciting. 

To me, the pledge to do that, which Bill Clinton made towards the end of his presidency and George W. Bush made as his years in the White House were just beginning, was absolutely thrilling.  Because of the lower annual interest payments that would result, no other change then being seriously talked about had the potential to alter the long-term federal budget outlook as positively and permanently.

That's why I found the mid-session review of the budget released yesterday to be so depressing.  It was the official notice that the pledge, and all the good things that would come from it, would not be fullfilled.  It was also time to admit that the budget politics, economics, and limits of the past decade would continue...and continue...and continue.

That's just not a happy occasion for anyone but those of us who blog, write, and talk about the budget. Business will be booming.

Here's my latest "Fiscal Fitness" column from  Roll Call.

President Bush’s Budget Legacy
Already Set in Stone
Roll Call
January 22, 2008

Although it certainly wasn’t meant to be funny, I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the Jan. 14 Roll Call story “Bush May Target Earmarks.”

John Fund's well-written piece in the today's Wall Street Journal online about earmarks overstates the case and misses the point.

Yes, President Bush has the ability not to spend many of the earmarks Republican and Democrats listed in the report accompanying the omnibus spending bill he signed in December, but doing so is likely to cause him political harm rather than establish the positive legacy Fund thinks will occur.