Bush's fiscal plan less bad than Kerry's

Bush detractors bash Bush for what he's done to the deficit. I agree.

Bush detractors say that's reason to vote for Kerry. I disagree. For three reasons:

1. The deficit going forward. Under Kerry's plan, the deficit would grow even faster than under Bush's plan. (I base this analysis on Global Insight, Inc.'s modeling of the impacts of each candidate's fiscal proposals.) Here are the data:
   
   
   • 2009 deficit under Bush plan: $375 billion (bad)
     
   • 2009 deficit under Kerry plan: $447 billion (worse)
     
     
   • 2014 deficit under Bush plan: $532 billion (bad)
     
   • 2014 deficit under Kerry plan: $644 billion (worse)

   (Pay no attention to either candidate's pledge to cut the deficit in half in five years.)

2. Tax cuts versus spending increases. The Kerry plan would increase the deficit primarily through increased spending (more than offsetting the increased taxes on high earners) while the Bush plan would increase the deficit primarily through lower taxes. Lower taxes are good; increased spending is bad.
3. Drivers of growth. Any growth under the Kerry plan would be driven primarily by government spending. Bush growth would be driven largely by market-friendly policies (like extending the reductions in taxes on dividends and capital gains) which would ultimately boost both stock market values and capital spending, growing the economy. Bush's plan is better for the economy's long-term health.

So, while Bush has never met a spending increase he's willing to veto, and while he has presided over outrageous growth in domestic spending, he's still better on fiscal policy than his challenger.