Here are a few facts for your amazement and amusement.
All of the data is presented in real terms using chained 2000 Dollars from 1929 through 2009. The source for all spending, GDP, income and tax figures is the Congressional Budget Office. Data about the make-up of congress is from One Simple Idea. In addition, the data is grouped by congressional session (2 years).
The two largest spending hikes were enacted during FDR’s administration with Democratic majorities in both houses. Of course the largest was from 1943 to 1945 due to World War II when spending jumped 266% to 40% of GDP. The second largest was from 1933-1935, at the start of the Great Depression. The Republicans fill the next two spots. Hoover (1931-1993), also at the start of the Great Depression and Eisenhower (1953-1955) as the Cold War started, both times with Republican majorities in congress, raised spending 56% and 49%, respectively. FDR rounds out the top-5 list with a distant 19% increase. Obama and the Democratic majority have enacted an 8.5% increase in the first year of the congressional session. They could be in the top five by the time this session is over.
To be fair though, we have to examine total spending rather than just spending hikes on a percentage basis. If we exclude the World War II years (1943-1947), Obama and our Democratic congress will top the list of spenders at 21.8% of GDP. However, the next three top spenders were Republican presidents with Democratic congresses. Reagan (1981-1985) at 21.1%, GWH Bush (1991-1993) and then again Reagan (1985-1987) are next on the list, each at 20.9%. Clinton and a Democratic congress (1993-1995), round out the top-5 at 20.8%. Ford (1975-1977), Eisenhower (1953-1955), and GW Bush (2007-2009) were also members of the “20% Plus” club. Mean spending as a percent of GDP since Eisenhower (1953) has averaged 19%. Carter (1977-1979) and a Democratic congress would be the only new member of the “19% Plus” club.
The longest consecutive streak of spending cuts relative to GDP was from 1995 to 2001. Clinton, with Republican majorities in both houses, cut spending as a percent of GDP from 19.8% to 17.8%. Those were the good old days.
Stay tuned for who’s paying for the spending.
[caption id="attachment_1001" align="alignleft" width="1024" caption="Real Spending vs GDP"]
[/caption][caption id="attachment_1004" align="alignleft" width="835" caption="Senate Seats vs. Spending"]
[/caption][caption id="attachment_1005" align="alignleft" width="836" caption="House Seats vs. Spending"]
[/caption][caption id="attachment_1008" align="alignleft" width="905" caption="Real Spending per Capita"]
[/caption]
I, too, pine for the good old Clinton days...
ReplyDelete... and as a "liberaltarian", I don't buy into the myth that Republicans are thrifty with tax money (they just like spending money on different things than the Democrats).
But the hidden assumption that government spending should rise at the same rate as overall economic activity (that real spending as a percentage of real GDP should remain roughly constant) bothers me.
I'd prefer looking at real spending per-capita; more people = more spending makes sense. But I don't see any reason to spend more on, say, the military just because we can because we're richer. I suppose one could argue that we're a bigger target if we're richer, so we need to spend more on defense, but I'd be very skeptical of such a claim.
There's a better argument for spending more on the poor as we get richer (after all, we can afford it, right?), although if the poor are getting richer along with the rest of us, shouldn't we need to spend less?
And most of the rest of what the government does (building roads, courts, regulation, yada yada) should grow roughly with increasing population. Heck, if the rest of the economy is getting more productive (doing more with less), shouldn't government get more productive and benefit from economies of scale, too? That would imply LESS per-capita spending as we grow...
gavinandresen -
ReplyDeleteLiberaltarian? I like that!
I added a chart based on your question.
There's another layer to the onion that I'm looking at for another post that looks at how the money is being spent and the dominance of entitlement spending. Then the question becomes, who put the legislation in place that is driving the spending.
I can't take credit for "liberaltarian" -- I first ran across it on Will Wilkinson's blog.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the per-capita chart; it's amazing how spending leveled off during Clinton's terms, and then Bush Jr. picked right up where his daddy left off...
I like this blog. I hope you don't mind I stole one of graphs to make a point.
ReplyDeletekbray85 - glad you liked it. Enjoy the chart!
ReplyDelete