One of the latest canards to come from Bush’s apologists has been that his out-of-control spending is a result of his being a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Such a theory isn’t simply limited to shameless political hacks — in fact, it filters all the way up to the top ranks of the party. A prime example of this political myth-making is evidenced in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed penned by White House budget director Joshua Bolten, who, while obsequiously praising the president’s economic plan, attempted to thwart critics of the administration by carving out a very limited budget picture in an attempt to favorably portray Bush’s reckless spending record.

For example, Mr. Bolten’s main contention is that President Bush faced a “perfect storm” of economic crises upon taking office. This included the stock market collapse, the rash of corporate scandals, and Sept. 11, all of which resulted in a dramatic drop in government revenues. Coupled with necessary spending increases to fund improvements to homeland security, Bolten claims the record budget deficits Mr. Bush’s critics from both the left and right assail him for are simply the result of circumstances beyond his control.

There’s just one problem with this picture: It doesn’t match up with reality. Consider the first of Mr. Bolten’s claims — that more than “three quarters of that [discretionary spending] increase has been directly related to our response to 9/11, enhanced homeland security and the global war on terror.” Even the ever-reliable conservative stalwart Heritage Foundation begs to differ, putting the number at well below half of outlays. The Cato Institute’s breakdown of the actual numbers give even greater cause for skepticism — for example, what do a 60.8 percent increase in the Department of Education’s budget along with 56 percent boost to the Department of Labor over the first three years of Mr. Bush’s term have to do with “homeland security?” Perhaps the same thing that his request to massively increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts does: absolutely nothing.

President Bush may have just cause for his significant boosts of funding to the Defense and State departments, but presidents thrust in similar circumstances before him have reacted with greater prudence. For example, Reagan’s massive defense buildup was partially offset by cuts to nearly every cabinet-level department, amounting to a net reduction of 13.5 percent in non-defense discretionary outlays compared to Bush’s 20.8 percent increase. If Bush can’t even manage to accomplish similar results with a friendly party in charge of Congress, what then does it say about his priorities?

Alas, as the president’s defenders contend, the fault lies with Congress. But perhaps they forget that as chief executive, he also wields the veto power. An excusable error, since Mr. Bush himself seems to have forgotten this fact as well. Of course, Mr. Bolten has an equally implausible scenario — the president simply “hasn’t needed” to ink his veto stamp — every bill that has come out of Congress has been satisfactory.

This, of course, would include everything from the bloated farm subsidy bill to the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which started off as the largest entitlement expansion since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, and since then has already had its costs revised upwards to nearly $600 billion in the next decade.

Like it or not, the ultimate cost of Bush’s reckless spending bonanza will bite back hard, and history bears this out — consider his father’s broken “no new taxes” pledge or Bill Clinton’s middle class tax hike, both justified on the grounds of tackling ballooning federal deficits. If President Bush doesn’t get his fiscal house in order fast, the crown jewel of his economic plan — the tax cuts — are going to be the first thing sacked. Yet Mr. Bush shows no signs of changing his errant ways. His answer to budget hawks has been to propose cutting the deficit in half over the next decade — a proposal which is about as anemic as it is implausible, given the laundry list of new spending he has already proposed in his State of the Union address.

It’s time for conservatives to take a hard look at the man they’re backing — do they still wish to pledge their allegiance to a man so outwardly hostile to their own sacred principles of limited government and fiscal austerity? Or will they simply continue to make excuses for his bad behavior?