The Champions of Discretionary Spending UPDATED
By Neil Stevens Posted in Policy — Comments (56) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's been brought to my attention that I made another error: I slipped up and shifted by one the years to which I credited each President. Ronald Reagan, to use the example given by the person who corrected me, took office in 1981, of course, so his first budget applied to the year 1982.
Combine this with other criticisms, and I'm just going to try it again soon with a new approach to the problem.
I tell you: never have I gotten a true appreciation for how easy it is to lie with statistics, than in making honest attempts to see where the Bush administration stands historically with respect to spending. There are just so many ways to chop and analyze the numbers, with every way telling a different story.
We all know the of story of the federal budget. While 'mandatory' entitlement spending is a runaway wreck, Presidents and Congresses have had differing success in controlling so-called discretionary spending. And the most 'fiscally conservative' President in that regard was President Clinton, thanks to 'divided government' forcing restraint. And of course the worst two were Presidents Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, who ran amok creating and growing programs thanks to one-party rule creating no opposition to waste.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but that story's not quite right. Here's why:
[Updated below the fold to correct an error]
The traditional lament of the 'fiscal conservative' goes something like this: We look at how much 'discretionary' spending went up under various Presidents, and we do indeed find that discretionary spending went up most under Presidents Johnson and G.W. Bush, as this chart shows:
Allegedly, according to this simple calculation, the most fiscally disciplined Presidents were President GHW Bush, Nixon, and Clinton. Reagan and Carter are in the middle of the pack, and yes, Johnson and GW Bush stick out like Christmas Shoppers with black American Express cards.
What do President Johnson's elected term and President G.W. Bush's first term have in common though? War. Do conservatives consider defense spending in Vietnam or Afghanistan and Iraq to be wasteful, liberal growths in government that are to be discouraged? Of course not. We all know that if you're an anti-war budget hawk your name is Ron Paul, and nobody likes Ron Paul. So let's subtract defense spending and try this again:
Well lookee-here. Golden boy Clinton goes from the minus side all the way up above zero for both terms. It turns out that gee, he was spending after all, but used cuts in the military to pay for it. And the hero of the day should actually be Ronald Reagan, who held the line rather well both terms.
And what happened to our goats? Presidents Johnson and GW Bush dropped three places each, leaving Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter our worst spending Presidents since 1964! In fact, President GW Bush looks quite a lot like his father for his first term, and in his second term is shaping up to look like Clinton.
I conclude this: President Bush is no President Reagan, but to accuse him and the last few Congresses of runaway spending, is to neglect the whole story. Other than the war and Medicare Part D, President Bush is simply nothing special either way, and I do not believe that 'fiscal conservatives' should feel like they have been put out into the cold in recent years. Because on top of spending, we must remember the other half of the equation: taxes. Does anyone care to say that President Bush is the not second-best President on this list when it comes to taxes? Other than Ronald Reagan, who cut tax rates better? Nobody, that's who.
It's time to unify in the runup to 2008. No one faction has gotten everything it would want out of the Bush administration, but self-described fiscal conservatives should not be hanging their heads saying they've been put out into the cold. Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door, and we have to do the best we can without him. Now is not the time to fight and try to get even for an alleged grievance. We've all done well enough that we should be looking to build on success, not try to scramble to make up for some defeat.
It's time to pull together and win.
Notes: I break the two-term Presidencies into separate terms to facilitate comparison with single-term Presidents, as well as President GW Bush whose second term is not yet done. This also allows us to mentally adjust for Congressional makeup as we see fit.
Source for all data used in the charts: Congressional Budget Office historical budget figures, which go back to 1962, which is why these charts begin with Lyndon Johnson's budgets for 1965-68. Please contact me if you know of reliable budget data prior to 1962, particularly if it is Internet-accessible.
Update: I made an error last night and I apologize. When subtracting out the Defense spending from the Discretionary spending, I accidentally removed the CPI adjustment, which is included in the first chart. Here is the second chart done with CPI adjustments, to bring it in line with the first:
I do the CPI adjustment on each year's budget, then calculate the growth, just to make my method clear. And looking at this, well, I have to revise my statements a little. Johnson and Bush don't come out quite in the middle of the pack anymore, but a) the rankings barely change, b) Reagan comes out looking ridiculously good, c) Clinton still isn't the paragon of budgeting, his second term tracking almost identically with GHW Bush, and d) They're still better than Nixon and Ford.
But let's look at those numbers. Even Johnson cut discretionary spending his last year, President Bush cut the growth rate way down in his election year, and that discipline continued to the point where last year's budget growth is indistinguishable from 1998's.
Clearly my error has diminished the strong point I made above, but I still urge all Republicans to abandon the idea that President Bush spent more than Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. He didn't. I also urge rejection of the myth that Clinton cut spending like Reagan. He didn't cut, and he wasn't even close to Reagan.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Run away wars are NOT part of run away spending? Since both of these Presidents were involved in escalating spending for an unconstitutional war (technically a conflict) that would fall into the category of runaway spending. However, you cannot have runaway spending on a war without congress and so the entire government is responsible for this massive spending not just these presidents. I might add the American people are not responsible for this massive spending as we are not consulted before our government spends our tax dollars and borrow money using our consignature from the Federal Reserve Bank and countries like China. Bush's second term will be even more massive than the first term as well all know.
Ron Paul is not anti-war. Nor does "nobody likes Ron Paul". Since you are interested in spending habits of government you wouldn't find a more fiscally conservative and concerned politician than Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a champion of conservative spending.
Escalating wars that the majority of people of your country are against cannot be carved out to prove a point on spending. The money was spent period! The real question should be asked as to who is the government working for as it's obvious they don't work for the American people, we work for them. One would think that if our government was working for us they would have the borders and ports secured rather than selling us the load of bull that if we fight them over there then they won't come over here... if anyone belives that they won't and aren't already over here and are not getting here via unsecured borders/ports, well then I have a few bridges in the midwest to sell you don't worry these bridges are safe because "I" say so.
I cringe to use a Kos term, but Ron Paul's policy views aren't able to survive in the reality based community.
To use a Kos term, it's the "reality based community" pretending to support him in order to get the weakest Republican.
I have only seen signs for Ron Paul in the deepest part of Chicago... you know... the place where fiscal and social conservatives are known to congregate.
Nice try though.
We all figured out a while back that Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! is being set up as this election cycle's Blake Ashby. Which will no doubt upset the actual Blake Ashby, who probably still wanted the job.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It's too bad that we have to depend on Redstate to set the record straight. My beef with this administration is that, when it comes to major programs, spending and budgets, amongst other things, they are the worst communicators on the planet. All they do is spew happy talk without explaining, in English, what they've done and what the results will be. It never ceases to amaze me how they patted themselves on the back about their communication discipline, and it turned out to be their Anchilles heel, starting at the top.
Interesting analysis, Neil. Congrats on your editorial promotion, btw.
I agree with you that conflating defense spending with other discretionary spending can confuse the issue of who is loosest with the purse strings, but I would note that even with the military budget line removed, Bush rolls in at almost 30% above his year one benchmark in his first term. That's close to double what Clinton's second term yielded, and six times his first term. Both, for the most part, had a Republican congress as well, although I think you and I would both agree the Republicans of 1994 were a bit different than the ones of 2004.
I also think it's fair, both in Johnson's case and Bush's, to look at the military spending as well. But I think your data makes an excellent comparison point.
Anyway, my bottom line is that I read your data to state Bush had not lived up to the fiscal conservative idea of limited government spending, but he's not as bad as advertised. Not sure that's the rallying point you are looking for.
and, like Bourbeau, I wish it would be used "out front" somewhere to make the points that the White House should have been making. All too often, this White House has given the public too much credit for seeing beyond the media distortions on all issues. If they had been presenting data as you did, maybe it would have quelled a few memes over the years.
I thought we were all Doomed! Medipander was a dumb idea, but I thought GWB was the next LBJ and it was up to Lou Dobbs to save us.../sarcasm>
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
I agree. The administrations communications have been pathetic.
we need to account for the budgetary effect of a decade-long orgy of transportation spending all over the Country. My State got singled out for the bridges, but those projects were just earmarks within our allotment of transportation funding; we got the money anyway, it just becomes a matter of what it is used for other than than the bridges.
I've travelled to or through most of the major cities in the Country over the last decade or so, and the whole Country has been under construction. Most states were and are having serious difficulty recruiting and retaining civil engineers and skilled construction labor, especially equipment operators and heavy mechanics. Can't say that a lot of spending on transportation wasn't needed, there was getting to be more than a slight air of mild, and not so mild, decay, but since this is federal spending, much, maybe most, was going to new construction and major upgrades, not to desperately needed maintenance of existing infrastructure, e.g., the Minneapolis bridge collaps; that kind of work is largely funded from state and local sources.
Anyway, while there was a lot of questionable stuff with some Congressman's name on it built or funded, a huge percentage of federal domestic spending in the last decade or so went to transportation projects that somebody somewhere thought were important. It would be interesting to break that out of the discretionary spending and see the effect on the overall discretionary spending budget. Funding source would also be interesting; specifically how much was highway "trust fund" money (fuel taxes and usage fees) and how much from the general revenue.
(I'd dig into it, but I have a brief due Friday that can't seem to write itself. If nobody else does it, I'll see what I can dig up next week.)
In Vino Veritas
Taking out one part of the budget to make a comparison is not a fair comparison.
If the government wants to spend more on the military, it can either spend less on other things or raise tax revenues. So if Reagan or Bush want to increase military expenditures and cut domestic spending equally, then the first graph would show 0% growth. But if they expand the military and spend more on domestic spending, then there is positive government growth.
If the military is important enough, we will cut other spending. It is not a good comparison to just leave out one area of spending for a comparison.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I think that going into debt to finance wars is the way we've always done it, and we've seemed to do alright.
Yeah, sometimes we did 'temporary' tax increases for the war, too, *Spanish-American War* *cough*, I think it says a lot about the way spending's going under this administration that we've cut taxes and have reasonable deficits while fighting this war.
So we may have to just agree to disagree on this, but I tried, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
You always put up a good fight when you try to put the lipstick on the pig - as Gengisdon observed, your conclusion isn't particularly encouraging. Even less so when you consider that 43 had (R) majorities in Congress - although that does also serve to shift the burden of "first blame" to those congressional majorities who served up the spending bills in the first place. Can't really blame 43 for that, although one wonders where his leadership and veto pen were.
No one expects a carbon copy of Reagan. But are you really suggesting that mere fiscal discipline is too much to ask? From here:
When President Reagan pursued his defense buildup, he increased real defense discretionary outlays by 19.2 percent while cutting non-defense discretionary outlays by 13.5 percent. However, if estimates hold, President Bush will have increased real defense discretionary outlays by 21.2 percent-but non-defense discretionary outlays will have risen by 18 percent.
Reagan wasn't some mythical beast, he just had the fiscal discipline to offset the military spending increase with decreases elsewhere. He probably learned that in Econ 101, he didn't need a PhD to figure it out.
I think you're more defensive than you need to be. It's like you assume all fiscal conservatives will run into the arms of the (D)'s unless you can get people to stop criticizing obvious bad fiscal behaviour by a (R) president and (R) congress. The reality is people who care about fiscal discipline need to keep pointing out the absurdity of things like Medicare Part D (a shiny new entitlement program - you know, those things even you always state are our worst nightmare) and funding for new liberal programs like NCLB. It's one of the very few ways people have to push whoever is the next (R) in a leadership position to behave better.
Even less so when you consider that 43 had (R) majorities in Congress
Remember Jeffords? The biggest spending increases (by a long shot) came when we had a Republican House and a Democrat Senate. Not that it excuses the House or the President any, but it shouldn't be forgotten, as it always is by those who push for a "divided government" solution.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The "divided government" solution doesn't work when both sides of the divide actively attempt to increase spending.
But sure, the (D)'s had a one seat majority in the Senate for all of what, 18 months? That'd be a pretty poor excuse for the (R)'s if it's some kind of justification for the fiscal foolishness that got passed and signed. What were the (D) sponsered bills that somehow managed to get signed in spite of the opposition and protestations of the (R) house and (R) president?
But sure, the (D)'s had a one seat majority in the Senate
Running the Senate is a very big deal. It doesn't matter if you maintain control by one vote or by eight votes. You have the power to force a lot of compromises (read: extra spending) if you control the committees and the schedule. Especially in a time of war.
for all of what, 18 months?
18 months out of all of what, 48 months in Bush's first term? Seems like a pretty big deal to me.
It doesn't excuse jack... but the split Congress did a much worse job on spending than the all Republican Congress did.
As I said, it doesn't excuse jack. But that bit of history shouldn't just be ignored or glossed over (as it is all the time), either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"Conference Committee"
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The (R)leadership and 43 had 30 of 48 months in complete control to demonstrate conservative principles. You can keep trying, but the lipstick isn't thick enough to cover up the incredible opportunity that was blown - realistically, through no effort whatsoever by the (D)'s.
Bush was bound to have to raise military spending--war or no war--as Clinton surpluses were a result of the decimation of the military and intelligence agencies. My big qualms with Bush are the prescription drug program, the enormous farm bill, the financially bloated fixes for NY and New Orleans, the no child left behind mandates and increased education dept. spending and a few others. All done with full complicity of Mr. Bush--no veto threats, no suggestions for fiscal responsibility, in short, no fight.
But there is a big one I am not sure you have accounted for.
Spending on entitlement programmes does indeed shoot ahead regardless, but didn't LBJ and GWB voluntarily add new entitlement programmes. I might be prepared to forgive them for not abolishing the ones they inherited, but adding new ones is a pretty serious charge. If we add in those - which were, after all, discretionary up until the point they became entitlements, doesn't that tilt the figures back?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
The graphs seem to be normalized based on the values for the first year. Does this mean that if a president spends the most during the first year (out of the 4 years), that his corresponding curve will actually decrease?
_Does this mean that if a president spends the most during the first year (out of the 4 years), that his corresponding curve will actually decrease?_
Because that would mean spending was going down.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Give me a suggestion for an alternate way to go, and we can run the numbers.
What I've done is chart the four budgets each Presidential term is responsible for, as yet another crack at understanding this tough nut of budgeting.
This isn't my first try though, so I'm glad to hear other ideas.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I didn't see if you noted whether the charts were inflation adjusted. Would be interesting to see inflation adjusted particularly with regards to Nixon-Nixon/Ford, when IIRC we had pretty high inflation. It might partially explain the high spending growth during those years.
Apparently when I hacked on my spreadsheet to subtract out Defense, I removed the CPI adjustment! So the first chart is inflation-adjusted but the second is not. Oops.
Posting an update shortly.
It changes the exact amounts but doesn't change the rankings.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Maybe start the graph at a "-1 point" in the x-axis, which represents the last year of spending by the previous President. That way we can see the rate of spending compared to the predecessor.
Having these visuals is very nice BTW.
The worst president in history in fiscal terms is George W. Bush. Check the national debt when he took office, and what it's going to be when he leaves. (Hint -- try 10 TRILLION DOLLARS.) You can't just ignore most of the debt he has added because it went to bombing and occupying a country that posed no real threat to our security. The dollars are still spent, and the lives are still wasted, and the Republican Party's ascendancy is still gone.
Nobody likes Ron Paul? Why does he have the most supporters at every public appearance then?
And I'll tell you what, go look up for me how much we paid in debt service last year (There's a column in the charts in the CBO PDF that lists exactly how much Interest is paid every year), and tell me how significant it is.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Trillions in war debt??? Have you ever read the federal budget?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
"Nobody likes Ron Paul? Why does he have the most supporters at every public appearance then?"
Well that's easy. One word: Vanagon.
absentee
There are so many errors in your post that you'd be closer to the truth if you just negated everything you said.
First of all, since the national debt has increased under every president, then by your rules, every president has been the worst president in history in fiscal terms. Try looking at the debt as a percentage of the GDP sometime-- it was up to 122% in 1946 after World War II, dropped to 32% over the next 35 years, headed back up when Reagan actually decided to fight the Cold War by increasing military spending, peaking at 67 percent in Clinton's presidency (because he slashed military spending), and has since gone back up to 64 percent because of current war spending. So Clinton's debt as a percentage of GDP peaked higher than Bush II's, even though Bush is running a war.
I'm sure this information will fail to penetrate your head much like water on a duck's back, but there you go.
Oh, and the reason there are so many Ron Paul supporters at public appearances is because liberal protestors can't hold down jobs and Ron Paul is their favourite Republican.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
"Oh, and the reason there are so many Ron Paul supporters at public appearances is because liberal protestors can't hold down jobs and Ron Paul is their favourite Republican."
Actually, the reason Ron Paul has so much support is he is a responsible conservative Republican who bases all decision on upholding the Constitution. That is why he takes the stance on the war. Many REAL Republicans are waking up to this fact and are actually listening to reason and can see how disregarded we have become in our own neocon party leaders. 0 emphasis on protecting our borders and you wonder why they like Ron Paul.
Again I must say Ron Paul is NOT anti-war and is pro strong national defense.
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Airforce pilot, he knows well the needs of our armed forces and always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
U.S. President Ronald Regan
Americans, especially but not limited to Republican Americans, do not in fact say "U.S. President Ronald Reagan." It's like saying Thick-Ankled Hillary Clinton; the addition of "U.S." seems like an obvious redundancy.
Whichever European clime it is from which you hail, please go back to prognosticating on their politics.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Next time you quote Reagan, at least have the decency to spell his name correctly. Regan was his Secretary of the Treasury.
Just for the record, Ron Paul is the one Republican candidate that would force me to consider voting for a Democrat. That would break a string going back to Gerald Ford.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Was this, perchance, in an election in which Ron Paul was the Republican candidate? I believe he did the same for Gerald Ford, but we do not assume from that he and Ford had the same views.
Given a free choice, did Reagan ever appoint Paul to anything? While by no means an infallible guide, it seems to me this would be a better one than his merely supporting him in an election in which he (Paul) had been chosen as the Republican candidate by people other than Ronald Reagan.
But, then, I can answer my own question. There is only one person seeking the GOP nomination who served in the Reagan administration - and it ain't Ron Paul.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Your comment doesn't contradict my statement that only one candidate for President served in the Reagan administration, since Webb is not a candidate.
Nor does it undermine my assertion that Reagan appointing someone to an office is a better guide to what Reagan thought of them than the fact that he was willing to speak on behalf of them once selected as a Republican candidate. He spoke on behalf of Ford in 1976 - but we know he didn't support Ford in the primaries.
The fact that someone served in the Reagan administration is not a terribly good guide to their views - just better than the fact that he spoke for them in an election.
Though, IIRC, Webb was fired by Reagan, whereas Giuliani served throughout Reagan's presidency. The firing was, of course, more recent than the appointing.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Since the media doesn't cover Ron Paul supporters its just not real. But I have to say that there is only one candidate (Ron Paul) to have compiled more head to head wins against all other Republican candidates in straw polls. Those supporters obviously have donated more straw poll fundraising money to the Republican party than any other candidate.
But of course Ron Paul doesn't really have supporters it's just people who like to throw money away by giving it to the Republican party and voting for someone nobody likes.
I did a study not too long ago of straw polls, and I was pretty sure that Fred had more wins, and Romney had more top three finishes.
And my source was even a Ronulan website.
Yeah, it's right here. So unless Paul went on an absolute tear in the last few weeks, he's trailing Thompson in firsts and Romney in shows.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Rudy Giuliani 23- 3- 0
Mitt Romney 15- 11-0
Fred Thompson 13- 12-0
John McCain 22- 3- 0
Mike Huckabee 21- 3- 1
Sam Brownback 22- 2- 1
Tom Tancredo 23- 1- 0
Duncan Hunter 22- 2- 0
One interesting stat that you may not have considered in your evaluation is that Ron Paul's name has been excluded from straw poll voting sessions. Even with that fact, he has clearly beat every single Republican candidate head to head. This info is not from a "Ronulan site" its from Ron Paul's site and given his integrity this is no doubt accurate information.
So now you have it Fred and Mitt are behind but they still have the media, so there is hope. Unless they go on a tear soon Ron Paul supporters will continue to contribute more than any other candidate to our Republican party in straw polls. Also, you may want to look at some of the 81% and 74% landslides that Ron Paul has carried in straw polls I haven't seen any other candidates touch that, so yes his supporters are helping my Republican party which is in debt. Not surprising as our leadership has disregarded conservative spending since that's really your original topic.
My diary shows we haven't ignored spending, and this Bush is in line with the moderates like his father, rather than the real liberals like Ford or Nixon.
But anyway, the fact that you claim there's a press bias in favor of Romney and Thompson is absurd. They've both been the victims of repeated hit attempts by lefty writers. You do know who owns the press right?
That's right, Democrats.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Not able to repsond to facts? (straw polls)
I'll take the bait on your switch...I hardly think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to media bias and you obviously know that.
Who cares what the lefty news reports everyone knows its tainted by sickness, however, when I refer to media bias always know it pertains only to MSM i.e. Fox, CNN etc as they control massive perceptions in an apathetic society we live.
Now, why is nothing reported on someone nobody likes when that nobody wins more straw polls nationwide head to head isn't that news worthy? Only...if you are a member of the Council on Foriegn Relations as in "top tier" on both sides as decided by the media. CFR's platform is open to the public and is very interesting in it desires to alter the constitution and destroy soviergnty of our nation. And we wonder why our borders are less protected today.
These neocon-Republicans sound they should cast there vote for Hillary as she is pro war, pro big government, pro special interests and pro destruction of the constitution and thats her voting record. Oh an she is a member of the CFR. Perfect!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I think we all understand that
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You're going to be truly shocked when Ron Paul does so poorly in the primaries, aren't you? LOL
how sad
Still doesn't justify the Congress's pork and it doesn't fix the GOP's credibility problem with the electorate on fiscal issues because of that pork, but there is no doubt that Republicans are still far superior to Democrats on fiscal issues. Things like this help us keep that in focus.
Thanks for the great graphs and research.
I may have to consider changing my mind about you....
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I don't fault Bush for the fairly significant inflation adjusted growth in 2001-2003, in fact I think it was economically wise for him to rachet up spending and at the same time cut taxes.
We were in a recession after a nearly unprecedented tech-bubble and Y2K IT spending driven economic bender. Even without 9-11, we would have been in store for a nasty recession in 2001-2002, there was no way the capital goods orders would sustain the Y2K driven spike at the end of the 1990s. Mix that in with the Nasdaq going into free fall (still only about 50% of its 1999 Market Value), and you are looking at an ugly recession. Then throw the 9-11 attacks on top of it, shutting down air travel for a week, further stock market declines. Then throw the mostly forgotten Anthrax letters into the mix, and realize that things looked pretty bleak coming out of 2001.
Yes, we had a recession, but I do believe that actions taken by the Bush admin- increasing spending and cutting taxes to stimulate the economy - helped kept the recession relatively shallow and brief. It could have been far, far worse.
As economic growth returned, govt. spending is apparently (appropriately) now being reined back in.
So I don't fault Bush for doing what the econ textbook says to do during a recession, but I do recognize the problem it creates- if you increase spending significantly, it's real hard to clamp back down on it.
I would sure like to see the updated graphs with the shift removed when you are done with them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Is the same categories of spending organized by Democrat/Republican/Mixed control of Congress.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I didn't break it up by discretionary/mandatory, but I was looking at Congressional control when I examined the divided government theory.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).