05-05-2005 23:40									#1
	CATO - Bush biggest spender in recent U.S. History Support Apolyton

The evil, liberal CATO institute is after W again.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

quote: Executive Summary President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either. Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term. The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent. The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office. Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.

You can check out the full .pdf file from the site.

So what happened to the party of smaller government?

	05-05-2005 23:47									#2
	Suffering from ads?

Nobody votes for someone who will say "we need to raise your taxes and cut your benefits".

	05-05-2005 23:49									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

Biggest spending president in 30 years? Hardly. For most of Clinton's term, he was spending more as a percentage of the economy than is Bush.

In reality, we're now spending on the low end of the range since 1974 in relation to our economy.

	05-05-2005 23:50									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Here's a chart I put together on this a couple of weeks ago. Follow the orange line.

Attachment: us_government_spending_and_taxation_in_r_1.gif
This has been downloaded 131 time(s).

	06-05-2005 00:24									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

actually, the party of small government still exists- that would be the liberarian party.

and look at the difference between the orange and blue lines. thats the federal deficit for one fiscal year. the area between the two after 2001 is the total deficit spending by bush between 2001 and 2003. (we are in 2005 now)

and your little statement that clinton spent more as a percent of GDP is wrong according to your graph.

	06-05-2005 00:28									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DanS Biggest spending president in 30 years? Hardly. For most of Clinton's term, he was spending more as a percentage of the economy than is Bush. In reality, we're now spending on the low end of the range since 1974 in relation to our economy.

So, which direction was our national debt going in the Clinton years, and which direction is it going now?

Spending has increased even adjusted for inflation on programs the GOP promised to cut. No two ways around that.

	06-05-2005 00:28									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

let me go even further and say that the GOP is unpatriotic and unamerican. they are taking the peoples hard earned money and giving it to special interests and are hurting the average american. the traitors who support them should leave the country.

	06-05-2005 01:15									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: So, which direction was our national debt going in the Clinton years, and which direction is it going now?

It was going up during Clinton too, except his last couple of years.

	06-05-2005 01:37									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS Here's a chart I put together on this a couple of weeks ago. Follow the orange line.

I would like to point out that that chart only shows current expenditure - i.e. spending on consumption and transfer payments - it excludes government investment which i'm sure has to be paid for as well.

	06-05-2005 01:39									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: It was going up during Clinton too, except his last couple of years.

because he inherited it from Bush I and Reagan. if you look at yearly deficit each year under clinton, it went down as a percent of GDP. that means he was doing something to keep it going down.

	06-05-2005 01:42									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS It was going up during Clinton too, except his last couple of years.

Hang on, using your preferred measure of a ratio relative to GDP the US's net government debt peaked in 1993 at 58% of GDP - it then fell to 38% by 2001 and has since risen to 46%

	06-05-2005 01:46									#12
	Support Apolyton

Estonians could teach you amis a thing or two about fiscal discipline.

	06-05-2005 01:50									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saras Estonians could teach you amis a thing or two about fiscal discipline.

Hell almost every other western nation could (the exception being my own )

	06-05-2005 02:06									#14
	Let me just show you something I made during the last five minutes or so... Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DanS It was going up during Clinton too, except his last couple of years.

While factually correct, I think this statement is a bit misleading. Let me demonstrate, using your own graph:

	06-05-2005 02:08									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Now then DanS, when you look at the "Clinton" part of that chart, do you see any trend regarding the size of the federal deficit?

	06-05-2005 02:40									#17
	Put an end to popups!

damn, VJ.

	06-05-2005 02:43									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It went down there because the Republicans held the line on spending but Clinton managed to raise taxes.

	06-05-2005 02:47									#19
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: the Republicans held the line on spending

	06-05-2005 02:49									#20
	Tired of ads?

quote: I would like to point out that that chart only shows current expenditure - i.e. spending on consumption and transfer payments - it excludes government investment which i'm sure has to be paid for as well.

No, it doesn't. This one uses total expenditures and revenues.

	06-05-2005 03:00									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Now then DanS, when you look at the "Clinton" part of that chart, do you see any trend regarding the size of the federal deficit?

While factually correct, your analysis is misleading. In the US, the previous president's tax and spending policies (inasmuch as they influence the congress's tax and spending policies) are followed through at least the first 9 months of the new president's term. So the spending started heading down at the tail end of Bush 41's policies and up at the tail end of Clinton's policies (all in relation to the economy).

	06-05-2005 06:57									#22
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DanS No, it doesn't. This one uses total expenditures and revenues.

So what do you do about the items 'Capital transfer payments' and 'Net purchases of nonproduced assets' (Lines 36 and 37 on table 3.1)

There is no data for them before 1960 - so where did your data for 1929-59 come from then?

quote: Originally posted by DanS While factually correct, your analysis is misleading. In the US, the previous president's tax and spending policies (inasmuch as they influence the congress's tax and spending policies) are followed through at least the first 9 months of the new president's term. So the spending started heading down at the tail end of Bush 41's policies and up at the tail end of Clinton's policies (all in relation to the economy).

So are you saying that Bush Snr 'saw the light' of fiscal responsibility only during the last few months of his presidency?
That compares pretty badly with Clinton then doesn't it - he appears to have pursued it up until the end of his presidency (when, remember, there were large surpluses).

You also pooh-pooh Clinton's fiscal repsonsibility by saying about the US's national debt that:

quote: Originally posted by DanS It was going up during Clinton too, except his last couple of years.

Need I remind you that the only years in which the US's net debt has decreased (in the period from 1960-2004 for which comparable data exists) were 2000, 1999, 1998 and 1969 - and the smallest surplus of the clinton years (0.4% of GDP in 1998) was double the only non-clinton surplus of 1969 (0.2%).


And you think i'm being misleading?

It's a real shame to see you fall from grace like this DanS, I used to have some respect for your analysis and thought you relatively impartial compared to most posters on 'poly.

How the mighty have fallen

	06-05-2005 07:14									#23
	Tired of ads?

quote: So are you saying that Bush Snr 'saw the light' of fiscal responsibility only during the last few months of his presidency?

Remember he raised taxes a good amount during his Presidency which eventually got him kicked out. Bush Sr. was nothing like his son.

	06-05-2005 07:28									#24
	Put an end to popups!

Yes I remember - and he was to be commended for it.

However DanS seems to be claiming that giving at least some credit to Clinton for the the turnaround in the US's net debt which happened from 1993 (and which carried on for 8 years remember) and for achieving 3 out of 4 of the annual surpluses in the last 44 years is somehow 'misleading'

	06-05-2005 07:36									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by el freako So what do you do about the items 'Capital transfer payments' and 'Net purchases of nonproduced assets' (Lines 36 and 37 on table 3.1) There is no data for them before 1960 - so where did your data for 1929-59 come from then?

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carrie...vernment_s.html

quote: So are you saying that Bush Snr 'saw the light' of fiscal responsibility only during the last few months of his presidency?

Refer to Imran's answer. But also consider that Bush Sr was fighting poor economics, which ultimately is of paramount importance in such an analysis, since the president doesn't have much control over the divisor.

quote: That compares pretty badly with Clinton then doesn't it - he appears to have pursued it up until the end of his presidency (when, remember, there were large surpluses).

I'm not dissing Clinton, but note that he didn't suffer from a recession in any portion of his presidency and didn't have any expensive crises that he had to take care of.

quote: You also pooh-pooh Clinton's fiscal repsonsibility by saying about the US's national debt that:

I'm not pooh-poohing Clinton. The first thing I have wrong with Clinton's presidency with regard to economics is that he let the surpluses grow too much. He would have left his successor in a much better position by cutting taxes in '97 and '98. The government was taking too much of production.

The second was that FY '01 spending was a complete boondoggle, the fault for which Clinton and the GOP congress share. All fiscal sanity was killed that year, and Bush didn't have anything to do with that.

But overall, I thought he did a good job by keeping the status quo on track.

quote: And you think i'm being misleading? It's a real shame to see you fall from grace like this DanS, I used to have some respect for your analysis and thought you relatively impartial compared to most posters on 'poly. How the mighty have fallen

Where did I say that you were misleading? Are you posting under the username VJ?

	06-05-2005 07:55									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carrie...vernment_s.html

Hmm, looking at the excel file related to that (you did look at it before posting the graph right?) there are two errors:

First they ignore the point I made about lines 36 and 37 on BEA table 3.1 as there is no data they assume the numbers are zero before 1960 - not very accrurate as I hope you'd agree.

Secondly they get confused by line 38 'Consumption of Fixed Capital' - basically depreciation of govenment assets - as this is deducted from the budget deficit due the way that deficit is calculated they also deduct it from government spending.

It is correct to deduct it from the deficit as that particular measure (net lending) is meant to show the net change in the governments net assets - how ever it is not appropriate to deduct it from spending, or would you not count repairs to a public building (for example) as government spending?

	06-05-2005 07:59									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

That's my post, dude.

quote: First they ignore the point I made about lines 36 and 37 on BEA table 3.1 as there is no data they assume the numbers are zero before 1960 - not very accrurate as I hope you'd agree.

Only an assumption, which I duly noted. I think it's reasonably accurate for my purposes in that post and our discussions here. Certainly, those two line items are de minimis in the known years.

quote: Secondly they get confused by line 38 'Consumption of Fixed Capital' - basically depreciation of govenment assets - as this is deducted from the budget deficit due the way that deficit is calculated they also deduct it from government spending.

I'll look in to that, but at first blush I think that's the way to do it. It's just a recreation of the mathematical method from 1960 onward for total expenditures from current expenditures.

In any event, anything pre-1960 doesn't impact our argument here, so suck it.

	06-05-2005 08:33									#28
	Tired of ads?

Washington delenda est.

	06-05-2005 10:02									#29
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DanS I'll look in to that, but at first blush I think that's the way to do it.

Surely you're not honestly saying that when the government conducts maintainence on it's assets that it shouldn't be counted as spending?

	06-05-2005 10:17									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If I'm understanding the concept correctly, consumption of fixed capital is depreciation of a government asset which has been invested in the past. You can only account for the spending once -- either when invested or when depreciated. Total expenditures accounts for it when spent. Current expenditures + consumption of fixed capital accounts for it when depreciated.

The total receipts and expenditures are basically your cash accounts, adding in all of the things you spent under the table like draws from the federal government for development loans and the like.