Redstate

I like to look on the positive side. Perhaps this will remind a President who is first and foremost, a party loyalist, rather than loyal to any ideology, that he has the power to veto legislation and spending.

It is one of those inherent powers he keeps going on about.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

and consistent with my take on your "previous posts on spending and divided government", I beg to differ, particularly in the absence of a link to the figures you used.

First of all, the effects of divided government that appeared in a recent book by Stephen Slivinski were summed up thusly by Bryan Caplan, Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University:

Slivinski tabulates that under the average united government - i.e., one-party control of the presidency, House, and Senate - the growth of real per-capita government spending is 3.4%. Under divided government, this growth rate is only 1.5% - less than half as fast.
<...>
That's a big difference. In contrast, united Democratic government and united Republican government look virtually the same: 3.3% government growth under Democrats vs. 3.6% under Republicans.

From Richard Vedder, Professor of Economics at Ohio University, who analyzed government gridlock between 1971 and 1997:

Using figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Council of Economic Advisers and our own calculations, unemployment averaged 5.6 percent in gridlock years and 6.5 percent in others. Inflation was 4.4 percent in gridlock years and 7.8 percent in the others. The annual percentage change in the Dow-Jones industrial average was 12.1 percent in gricklock years and 4.3 percent in others.

From William A. Niskanen, formerly the acting chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, who analyzed the rate of growth of real (inflation-adjusted) federal spending from the Eisenhower to Clinton administrations and whose figures show growth of 2.1% under divided government and 4.3% under united government:

The only two long periods of fiscal restraint were the Eisenhower administration and the Clinton administration, during both of which the opposition party controlled Congress. Conversely, the only long period of unusual fiscal expansion was the Kennedy/Johnson administration, which brought us both the Great Society and the Vietnam War with the support of the same party in Congress. The annual increase in real federal spending during the current Bush administration, by the way, has been 4.4 percent

The 2001-2005 fails to account for the fact that Bush had a Democratic Senate for part of his first term which is when the explosion in non-defense/homeland security discretionary spending actually took place.

There is no break down on defense/homeland security and non-defense/homeland spending or accounting for one-time expenditures such as the S&L bailout which may have happened on a POTUS’ watch but been the result of policy choices of previous administrations/congresses and which falsely give the impression that the next administration/Congress (who no longer has to pay the one-time expenditure) is holding the line on spending simply by not paying twice.

Also those who worship at the alter of “divided government” never seem to address the real cost-driver for federal spending: entitlement programs. Particularly Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which go up every year regardless of whether we have “gridlock” in Congress or not. The only thing “gridlock” guarantees is that we’re going to get at least another two years closer to the retirement of the baby boom generation and which adds another $600 billion a year to the unfunded liabilities that future Congresses will have to deal with.

Jan 2001 - May 2001 Reps hold both houses of Congress. June 2001-Jan 2003 mixed Congress. Jan 2003-Jan 2007 Reps hold again.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

Actually, non-divided looks worse than it first appers. The peace dividend years of 1993-4 were an anomaly. Without that dividend, spending growth would be higher.

But that's a quibble. The overall focus of your post is excellent.

The Republican congress sucked on spending control - too much spending, and in wrong places. The Democratic congress will suck worse- even more spending, and in more wrong places.

It's veto time!

I'd have to check, but I think the reason the Republican government is bigger than the Jeffords-era Mixed Congress, is Medicare Part D.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.