The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is set to spin this morning:

For the first time in his Presidency–and the first time in Washington since 1995–Mr. Bush is requesting that domestic, non-defense spending be restrained.

One might argue that it all depends on the meaning of restrained, but some things are worth pointing out. Under Clinton, overall discretionary spending increased by an average of 3.4 per cent annually. (1994-2001.) Overall spending went up an average of 4.03 per cent annually.

For extra amusement, can we get the WSJ to explain, in terms simple enough even we can understand, on what basis does the GOP portray itself as the party of fiscal discipline exactly?

As for the deficit, so long as it’s not back at the record-setting Reagan levels, it’s ok:

the nation is hardly in a fiscal crisis. The 2004 deficit estimate of $521 billion is 4.5% of GDP–well below the 5%-6% records of the 1980s

Don’t worry about your cholesterol level Mr. Taranto, it’s not nearly as bad as it used to be. Besides, the WSJ fucks itself in the ass shoots itself in the foot when it points out that the post-Bush budget projection years are covered with red ink:

The Bush Administration has added to this problem with its recent prescription drug bill that in just two months has already ballooned to $530 billion over 10 years, not $400 billion as promised last fall. In truth, even that number will look cheap once seniors figure out that Uncle Sam is paying their drug bills. These promises will have to be addressed with Social Security and Medicare reform sooner or later.

Yes, sooner or later. We’re guessing President What we have here is an intelligence failure is banking on later = 2008. Thanks for your sound and prudent fiscal management Mr. President. And the WSJ’s big finish?

The entire political class has lived the past decade on easy street, spending as if the voters would never notice. If Mr. Bush means what he says in this budget, the good news is that those days are over.

Sadly, No! The entire GOP sure has, but Clinton did manage at least two things Bush hasn’t (as far as we know) been able to do: one has been to hold federal spending growth roughly within inflation. (And you know what the other is, so don’t ask us.)