It’s clear now to everybody that King George’s brand of conservatism isn’t exactly of the “smaller government” variety. Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about from the conservative Heritage Foundation :

Federal spending — especially discretionary spending — has soared over the past two years, and new programs proposed by the President will make it difficult to check this growth. The President?s State of the Union pledge to limit growth of discretionary spending to 4 percent isn?t nearly enough. If the President is serious about limiting federal spending and not further burdening future generations, he should firmly oppose new entitlement programs and veto spending bills that contain corporate welfare. Only by taking such a strong lead could the President force Congress to reform its big-spending ways.
. . .
Federal spending?s drag on the economy is now over $20,000 per household — its highest level since World War II — and growing. Mandatory spending reached 11 percent of GDP for the first time ever. The recent Medicare drug bill represents a huge long-term burden on the fiscal health of this country. It was a massive entitlement expansion passed with no financing program to pay for it and is estimated by CBO to cost well over $2 trillion dollars over a 20-year period. The final check for this program will come due just when Social Security and Medicare run out of money.

Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003 total spending grew by 16 percent. Certainly the terror attacks of 9/11 placed additional demands on spending for homeland security, a strong defense, and rebuilding New York. However, this accounts for less than half of the new spending that has occurred since 9/11. What was so sorely lacking during this time was self-discipline required to balance fiscal priorities.

Here’s what Bush had to say a couple years ago about making sure federal spending doesn’t get out of control :

I can assure you I will work with Congress to control excessive federal spending. One reason they give the President the veto power is to make sure the Congress doesn’t over-spend. Over-spending could serve as an anchor on economic vitality and growth.

So you’d think with the spending situation being out of control, Bush would have made good on his promises and vetoed any bills that were irresponsible. Right?

Wrong. With only a few months left in his term, Bush is set to become the first president in over 100 years to never issue a veto. Here’s how he stacks up against recent presidents :

Despite his tough talk, when it comes to pressing the Congress to fall in line with his stated agenda, Bush hasn’t acted even once. Without ever distancing himself from the Congressional leadership, Bush has painted himself into a corner that he’ll have a hard time getting out of. Unlike past presidents, Bush doesn’t get to blame the explosion in federal spending (or weakened environmental laws, lack of adequate homeland security funding, prescription drug ‘benefits’ that hurt seniors, etc.) on the Congress. One can only assume that Bush’s failure to issue any vetoes is a tacit endorsement of everything that the 107th and 108th Congresses have passed.

So as the campaign season continues and people start to ask questions about their pet policies (”Why hasn’t _______ happened?”), the only answer will be because the president didn’t think those priorities were worth fighting for.