James Pethokoukis has a rather interesting article up at US News that I think is worth a read. He discusses how Bush’s economic record is already being distorted by the press.

All I can really add to that is, “well, duh.” Look, the moment the man took office the media kept saying “recession!” For eight years, that’s all we heard. And, you know, I can sit here and predict something for eight straight years and sooner or later be right about it. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

What irks me about Bush (and Congressional Republicans) over the last eight years is his fiscal policy. I certainly agree that the tax breaks did get — and keep — the economy going. The spending that went on, there’s just no excuse for that. Tiny deficits would have been acceptable, as he inherited a recession and we are at war, but the levels they were allowed to reach were unacceptable.

Look at it this way. When Bush took office, his priority was the tax cuts AND freezing spending at 3% increases per year. Had he stuck to that, we’d be in the black right now.

Let’s take a look, shall we? In FY 2002 (Bush’s first budget), total receipts (revenue taken in by the government) was $1,853,395,000,000 (give or take a few bucks). Spending was $2,011,153,000,000, giving a total deficit of roughly $157 billion (remember, there was a recession and revenues were down, and would drop for the next year or two as a result of 9/11).

Now, let’s assume that all revenues would have come in the same no matter what. If we take the FY 2002 spending and increase it each year by 3% (as Bush originally wanted and promised to do), we find that spending for each year would have roughly been as follows:

2003: $ 2,071,487,000,000
2004: $ 2,133,632,000,000
2005: $ 2,197,641,000,000
2006: $ 2,263,570,000,000
2007: $ 2,331,477,000,000
2008: $ 2,401,421,000,000

Now, what would our deficits have looked like for each year?

2003: $ 288.955 billion
2004: $ 253.353 billion
2005: $ 43.782 billion
2006: $ -143.684 billion (surplus)
2007: $ -208.619 billion (surplus)
2008: $ -261.053 billion (surplus)

So, from 2002 to 2008, we only would have had a total deficit of about $ 129 billion, a far cry from the nearly $ 2 trillion that was added in that length of time. And that’s WITH all of the other factors still in play (meaning, the war, the recession at the beginning of his term, etc.). So, you see, it wasn’t the tax cuts that made the deficit, it was the spending. I don’t know how many ways I have to say it or how many ways I have to show it to you, but there it is for you to see.

Now, I’m not defending Bush here, as I’ve disagreed with him on several things over the years (far more than I should, given as how he’s a so-called conservative Republican). I’m just saying that had he and Congressional Republicans shown a little backbone and stood by conservative beliefs and kept the spending under control, we’d be in a lot better shape than we are today to meet this recession head-on, without having to go down any socialist roads.

Where do I think Bush will end up in the final judgement of history? I think he, like Clinton, will be considered an “average” president. I think he will be given high marks — justifiably and regardless of what current liberals think — for liberating Iraq and keeping America safe by beating the snot out of al Qaeda. However, he will get bad marks — again, justifiably — for allowing the deficit to run amuck without so much as a single veto, backing amnesty, failing to reform Social Security, and failing to catch bin Laden.

I think Bush did a remarkable job, given the circumstances he inherited and the way he was treated by the left and the press. I think he dealt with the early recession properly, but he did not deal with the budget correctly. I would certainly have liked to see him stop reaching out to the left so much and instead strike back at them a few times, as well as the media, and tell them to their faces that they were full of it, but that’s not his style, I suppose.

He certainly was no Reagan, as he had promised to be and we hoped he was, but he wasn’t a Hoover, a Nixon, or a Carter, either. He did great things at certain times, don’t get me wrong, but he also performed terribly at other times when it really mattered, and for that I give him what I think he deserves, the rank of an “average” president. Not too great, but not a failure, either.

Update: A British historian seems to agree.