War Spending: Spending during a Time of War. Doesn't necessarily mean every cent went to bullets still being fired. Governments do not simply stop running their countries when they have a war on their hands, whatever FEMA may have told you.

But ok, that is probably bad writing on my part. My meaning was that Bush's financial policies during a period when he was also incurring massive (unbudgeted) military spending led to the leap. The leap happened on his watch, there is no doubt of that.

But let's talk direct war spending. The 2010 budget, which is the first to directly cover spending for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, puts this years spending FOR THOSE SPECIFIC CONFLICTS at 663.8 Billion dollars. This is just direct costs of that conflict, however, maintaining troops in combat, etc. VA support is budgeted elsewhere. Spending for the rest of the war came in supplementary spending bills, which were not on the budget, which is one great reason why Bush's Budget may have looked more balanced. Great way to balance the budget, just don't count certain expenditures for the war effort.

Look, I am not arguing that the debt is not a big problem, merely that the numbers are far more complicated than the article makes them out to be. 600 Billion a year (give or take for ebb and flow of related expenses) makes a HUGE chunk of change in the end, and a great deal of that spending is off the books. That the conflicts are now actually being budgeted points to a rise in fiscal responsibility, rather than a decline.