Taxes

[theogt]

Dear Democrats,

You win. The Republicans have pretty much sucked it up for the past 8 years. It's yours to lose.

Please, just don't raise my taxes *TOO MUCH*. Please?

Sincerely,

- theogt

[jterrell]

Dear Democrats,

You win. The Republicans have pretty much sucked it up for the past 8 years. It's yours to lose.

Please, just don't raise my taxes *TOO MUCH*. Please?

Sincerely,

- theogt

rofl:)

I do hear ya!

I am hopeful we can reduce our wartime expenditures greatly and thus balance the budget with a minimal tax increase not Charlie Rangel's plan.

[trickblue]

Dear Democrats,

You win. The Republicans have pretty much sucked it up for the past 8 years. It's yours to lose.

Please, just don't raise my taxes *TOO MUCH*. Please?

Sincerely,

- theogt



Until we control pork bills and entitlement programs, it ain't gonna happen...

[Doomsday101]

Until we control pork bills and entitlement programs, it ain't gonna happen...

I agree. I wish once and for all both parties would agree to the line item veto. Both parties want it when their man is in the White House but neither wants it when it is the other party’s guy. I think the Line Item veto would be a big help to this country.

[trickblue]

I agree. I wish once and for all both parties would agree to the line item veto. Both parties want it when their man is in the White House but neither wants it when it is the other party’s guy. I think the Line Item veto would be a big help to this country.

I agree wholeheartedly...

I didn't care for Clinton all that much, but I was fully in support of the line item veto being restored under his presidency...

Judge Hogan struck it down and subsequently the Supreme Court...

Ronald Reagan fully supported a line-item veto. Ironically Reagan appointed Hogan. :rolleyes:

Oh... and for brainpaint, it was Robert Byrd that started the ball rolling to having it repealed. Guess he had the constitution stuffed in the back pocket of his white robe that day... :D

[Eric_Boyer]

I agree wholeheartedly...

I didn't care for Clinton all that much, but I was fully in support of the line item veto being restored under his presidency...

Judge Hogan struck it down and subsequently the Supreme Court...

Ronald Reagan fully supported a line-item veto. Ironically Reagan appointed Hogan. :rolleyes:

What will the line item veto solve?

If a president uses the line item veto it will work just like a regular veto. The modified bill will go back to congress for a vote - only it wont require a 2/3 vote to pass.

If anything, line item veto is just an expedient way to spend money.

[trickblue]

What will the line item veto solve?

If a president uses the line item veto it will work just like a regular veto. The modified bill will go back to congress for a vote - only it wont require a 2/3 vote to pass.

If anything, line item veto is just an expedient way to spend money.

Hopefully it will stop congress from attaching pet projects onto legitimate bills knowing the president will have to sign them if he wants his bill...

It's designed to stop pork-barrel spending...

[Doomsday101]

Hopefully it will stop congress from attaching pet projects onto legitimate bills knowing the president will have to sign them if he wants his bill...

It's designed to stop pork-barrel spending...

Exactly. You have Bills for Road and bridges and yet other pet projects on studying pickles that have nothing to do with the bill get stuck in the bill. The line Item would help with some of the waste that goes on. It does not solve all problems but it would be a big help. If you look at some of the bills that goes before the president and see some of the wasted BS that gets thrown in it is a disgrace. I don't say this as a Republican or Dem but as an American I don't care who the president is he should have the ability to weed out this non-sense that is stuck in these bills that come to his desk.

[Sasquatch]

Can anyone who understands monetary policy and financial questions in general compare the effects of deficit spending to raising taxes in order to balance the budget? One would think that deficit spending has hidden costs for the average tax payer in the sense it reduces the value of the money we do pay, reduced services, etc. Much obliged.

As an addendum, I just want to comment on the warped genius of the current administration that spends money like its on fire, only to turn and claim that government (i.e. everything not related to the military) must be dismantled and taxes reduced because government cannot be trusted to spend people's money responsibly.

[Eric_Boyer]

Hopefully it will stop congress from attaching pet projects onto legitimate bills knowing the president will have to sign them if he wants his bill...

It's designed to stop pork-barrel spending...

Call me a skeptic.

Because I se no reason why a bill with pork attached couldn't get vetoed today. then congress will have to resubmit the bill without the pork. Walla - problem solved.

Of coure it might take a while longer to spend the money - but that ain't so bad.

the reality is pork is just a method of scratching each others backs. It came about naturally and won't cease with a line item veto.

My worst fear is eventually a bill that was altered with line item vetos doesn't even go back to congress - which means the president would have the power to legislate.

[trickblue]

As an addendum, I just want to comment on the warped genius of the current administration that spends money like its on fire, only to turn and claim that government (i.e. everything not related to the military) must be dismantled and taxes reduced because government cannot be trusted to spend people's money responsibly.

One of my biggest gripes with Bush and his administration is their spending habits. It's also one of the core things that makes him NOT a conservative...

I do believe in his tax cuts, but he, along with Congress need to make an effort to control spending...

I do agree with the statement that government cannot be trusted to spend our money responsibly. At one time, maybe... but not anymore...

[trickblue]

Call me a skeptic.

Because I se no reason why a bill with pork attached couldn't get vetoed today. then congress will have to resubmit the bill without the pork. Walla - problem solved.

Of coure it might take a while longer to spend the money - but that ain't so bad.

the reality is pork is just a method of scratching each others backs. It came about naturally and won't cease with a line item veto.

My worst fear is eventually a bill that was altered with line item vetos doesn't even go back to congress - which means the president would have the power to legislate.

Well certainly we should be skeptical. Our government over the past 75 years has given us reason to be skeptical...

If we ever get a fiscally responsible president, he could strike all of the pork out. Pork projects would have little chance of getting back through the congress and sent back up and maybe they could concentrate on more important issues.

A pipe dream? Maybe... but it's the best hope we have for now...

[theogt]

Can anyone who understands monetary policy and financial questions in general compare the effects of deficit spending to raising taxes in order to balance the budget? One would think that deficit spending has hidden costs for the average tax payer in the sense it reduces the value of the money we do pay, reduced services, etc. Much obliged.

As an addendum, I just want to comment on the warped genius of the current administration that spends money like its on fire, only to turn and claim that government (i.e. everything not related to the military) must be dismantled and taxes reduced because government cannot be trusted to spend people's money responsibly.Yes, it's true that the Republicans have spent like crazy -- hence my statement that they've "sucked it up."

The problem is that while the Repubs only pay lip service to fiscal constraint, the Dems don't even do that. They actually tell us they're going to raise spending.

So, we can complain about the spending done by a Republican White House combined with a Republican Congress over the past 8 years, but what they did will pale in comparison to a Democratic Congress and Democratic White House over the next 8.

Hello socialism! Goodbye new M5! :(

[Sasquatch]

The problem is that while the Repubs only pay lip service to fiscal constraint, the Dems don't even do that. They actually tell us they're going to raise spending.

So, we can complain about the spending done by a Republican White House combined with a Republican Congress over the past 8 years, but what they did will pale in comparison to a Democratic Congress and Democratic White House over the next 8.


So you prefer to be lied to?

Perhaps. We're sure to see in any event. :D

[theogt]

So you prefer to be lied to?

Perhaps. We're sure to see in any event. :DThe Republicans' spending will look frugal compared to a Democratic Congress combined with a Democratic White House. They've already told us so.

[jterrell]

The Republicans' spending will look frugal compared to a Democratic Congress combined with a Democratic White House. They've already told us so.

History rather counters that. Reagan, Bush, sr then shrub have spent the most of any Presidents in US history.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

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 cabinetlevel
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

[Sasquatch]

History rather counters that. Reagan, Bush, sr then shrub have spent the most of any Presidents in US history.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

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 cabinetlevel
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

If they ever grow a spine, war funding might come off the books, too.

[Eric_Boyer]

History rather counters that. Reagan, Bush, sr then shrub have spent the most of any Presidents in US history.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

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 cabinetlevel
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

ouch - that's gonna leave a mark.

[theogt]

History rather counters that. Reagan, Bush, sr then shrub have spent the most of any Presidents in US history.History shows that spending is the highest when either the Democrats control Congress or the same party controls both branches.

When the Dems control both, watch out.

The best case scenario is a fiscally conservative Republican Congress with a moderate Democratic president (i.e., the 90s).

[jterrell]

History shows that spending is the highest when either the Democrats control Congress or the same party controls both branches.

When the Dems control both, watch out.

I guess I'd have to politely disagree and ask to see an example here where that occurred?

Our spending has actually reached it's apex under a Repub Pres with a Repub Congress.

Republicans masquerading as Conservatives love to talk about entitlements(sorry TB that you used this here:) ) but it's really corporate welfare, warmongering and tax breaks for the rich that screw the budget and all those things are latently Republican in the last 25 years.

[theogt]

I guess I'd have to politely disagree and ask to see an example here where that occurred?

Our spending has actually reached it's apex under a Repub Pres with a Repub Congress.

Republicans masquerading as Conservatives love to talk about entitlements(sorry TB that you used this here:) ) but it's really corporate welfare, warmongering and tax breaks for the rich that screw the budget and all those things are latently Republican in the last 25 years.All you have to do is look at historical spending and look at the parties that controlled.

Like I said, when the same party controls both its' bad. When the Dems control congress it's bad. When the Dems control both, it's not good. The same also goes for Republicans, but to a lesser extent.

And FYI, it's impossible to take anyone serious that uses terms like "corporate welfare," "warmongering," and "tax breaks for the rich."

[jterrell]

All you have to do is look at historical spending and look at the parties that controlled.

Like I said, when the same party controls both its' bad. When the Dems control congress it's bad. When the Dems control both, it's not good. The same also goes for Republicans.

And FYI, it's impossible to take anyone serious that uses terms like "corporate welfare," "warmongering," and "tax breaks for the rich."

ROFL. Bro, you are providing exactly zero historical references.
Is it that hard to find even 1?

Was it under Kennedy?
Was it under LBJ perhaps?

If so how far back do you have to go to make your generalization work?

I can point you squarely to exact Presidential budgets and you shine me on with arguments of "yea just look at history... no really its the way it is"

And FYI, it's impossible to take anyone serious that uses terms like "corporate welfare," "warmongering," and "tax breaks for the rich."

You can take the more impartial terms here and its all the same thing. Militarism, cutting taxes for the highest tax brackets, tax breaks to corporations(sorry that one is already just descriptive) and those are still what screws the budget up. Those are the big ticket items period.

[theogt]

ROFL. Bro, you are providing exactly zero historical references.
Is it that hard to find even 1?

Was it under Kennedy?
Was it under LBJ perhaps?

If so how far back do you have to go to make your generalization work?

I can point you squarely to exact Presidential budgets and you shine me on with arguments of "yea just look at history... no really its the way it is"Here's an excel sheet.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/hist01z1.xls

Take it, put the numbers in present value and see for yourself. This isn't the first time I've thought of this or had the conversation. It's not at all controversial what I'm saying, so I'm not going to prove to you that the sky is, in fact, blue.

You can take the more impartial terms here and its all the same thing. Militarism, cutting taxes for the highest tax brackets, tax breaks to corporations(sorry that one is already just descriptive) and those are still what screws the budget up. Those are the big ticket items period.You have a sophomoric understanding of politics. This is like talking to a college freshman.

[Eric_Boyer]

All you have to do is look at historical spending and look at the parties that controlled.

Like I said, when the same party controls both its' bad. When the Dems control congress it's bad. When the Dems control both, it's not good. The same also goes for Republicans, but to a lesser extent.

And FYI, it's impossible to take anyone serious that uses terms like "corporate welfare," "warmongering," and "tax breaks for the rich."

corporate welfare is quite real.

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

[theogt]

corporate welfare is quite real.

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.What's your point? In some cases it's necessary. Blanketing it as a bad thing is just class warfare targeted at those that do not understand business or economics.

[Eric_Boyer]

What's your point? In some cases it's necessary. Blanketing it as a bad thing is just class warfare targeted at those that do not understand business or economics.

what's your point - you claim to not take people seriously that talk about corporate welfare - perhaps it is you that shouldn't be taken seriously?

[theogt]

what's your point - you claim to not take people seriously that talk about corporate welfare - perhaps it is you that shouldn't be taken seriously?Using the terminology is the problem. You can call it what it actually is, or you can call whatever politically charged terminology you want. If you do the latter, you won't be taken seriously.

We can talk about "killing babies" or we can talk about abortion. Only political hacks use the former term.

[Doomsday101]

corporate welfare is quite real.

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

And Clinton did the same with companies such as:
AT&T
Boeing, Inc.
Chevron Corp.
General Electric Co.
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Shell Petroleum, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
United Technology Corp

At least according to Cato Institute.

[theogt]

And Clinton did the same with companies such as:
AT&T
Boeing, Inc.
Chevron Corp.
General Electric Co.
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Shell Petroleum, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
United Technology Corp

At least according to Cato Institute.And, depending on the circumstances, it was probably a good decision to do so then as well.

[Doomsday101]

And, depending on the circumstances, it was probably a good decision to do so then as well.

True, Research money for cleaner burning fule was paid out to companies like Chevron, Shell and Texaco.

[Doomsday101]

Funny thing is the Dems love talking about corporate welfare as if it is the Republicans who do it and facts are so do they and as you said in also provides a benefits to this country

[Eric_Boyer]

Using the terminology is the problem. You can call it what it actually is, or you can call whatever politically charged terminology you want. If you do the latter, you won't be taken seriously.

We can talk about "killing babies" or we can talk about abortion. Only political hacks use the former term.

So it's fine calling subsidies to individuals welfare but using the same terminiology for the same activity directed at corporations is taboo? Says who?

I would argue that the term corporate welfare is the default description for this. It isn't politicaly charged IMO.

We have a lobbyist problem in Washington - and that often spells corporate welfare.

[theogt]

So it's fine calling subsidies to individuals welfare but using the same terminiology for the same activity directed at corporations is taboo? Says who?

I would argue that the term corporate welfare is the default description for this. It isn't politicaly charged IMO.

We have a lobbyist problem in Washington - and that often spells corporate welfare.That's fine. Just realize that people will think you're a hack and immediately discredit your opinion.

[Eric_Boyer]

That's fine. Just realize that people will think you're a hack and immediately discredit your opinion.

Anyone that does so is an idiot not worthy of my time.

[jterrell]

Here's an excel sheet.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/hist01z1.xls

Take it, put the numbers in present value and see for yourself. This isn't the first time I've thought of this or had the conversation. It's not at all controversial what I'm saying, so I'm not going to prove to you that the sky is, in fact, blue.

You have a sophomoric understanding of politics. This is like talking to a college freshman.

LOL. I am still waiting on you to make a point.

The excel spreadsheet you linked shows increasing deficits under the current administration and under past Repub Presidents w/ Repub congresses.

If you have a specific year or President in mind you'd like to examine more closely than by all means let's do so. What you are in fact saying is the sky is green.

I am fine disagreeing on a subject but hiding under some nonsensical "thats the way it is" mantra is not gonna do more than draw chuckles.

try reading this link and shaking the cobwebs off your tired and incorrect argument... or at least be respectful enough of the forum to make an argument and back it with some actual evidence.

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/bradford-spending.html

* Does spending grow more slowly during Republican presidencies than during Democratic presidencies?
* Does spending grow more slowly when Republicans control the House? the Senate?
* Does divided government (in which one party controls Congress and the other party controls the White House) result in lower spending growth? If so, does spending grow faster under Republican presidents with Democratic congresses than under Democratic presidents with Republican congresses?

So I added fields to my database for the political affiliation of the president and the party which controlled each house of Congress during each fiscal year, and began to look for correlations. A summary of the data can be found in the chart below.

It quickly became evident that the more recent data are quite different from the earlier data in two significant ways:

1. During the earlier years, annual changes in government spending were much greater than in later years. During the first six years of available data, during which Harry Truman was president, the average annual variation in per capita spending was 14.6%. The highest average annual change in any six-year period since Truman was president was 5.6%. As you can see from the graph below, which shows the year-to-year absolute change in spending, spending has become much less volatile over the years, and especially after 1970.
2. During the years before the presidency of Republican Richard Nixon (i.e., before fiscal year 1970), there was a strong correlation between the Republicans and lower growth in government spending, and between the Democrats and higher growth. Since 1970, this correlation has hardly existed.

Prior to 1970, the correlation was strong:

* When a Republican held the White House, spending fell by an average of 0.70% per year; with a Democrat in the White House, it grew by an average of 5.98%.
* With Republican control of Congress, spending fell by an average of 2.12% per year; with Democrats in control, spending rose by an average of 4.82% annually.
* With the GOP in control of both the White House and Congress, spending fell by an average of 6.85% per year. It is worth noting that this is a very small sample — just two years (fiscal years 1954–55). During the twelve years that the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, spending rose by an average of 6.55% per year.

During the six years of split government with a Republican White House, spending grew at an average rate of 4.92%. During the two years (fiscal years 1948–49) of split government with a Democrat in the White House, spending grew by 1.46%.

When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.


This strong correlation between spending growth and the party affiliation of the president disappeared with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.
A New Era Begins

Starting in 1968, a very different pattern emerges. Government continued to grow, but year-to-year spending changes became much less volatile. Part of the reason is that during the 1947 to 1969 period, government spending more than doubled, so that absolute changes resulted in much smaller changes expressed as percentages. We can hypothesize about other factors causing this drop in volatility; for example, the abandonment among Republicans of opposition to the welfare state.

But much more importantly, the correlations between spending and political parties changed radically. Prior to fiscal year 1970, there were very strong correlations between fiscal restraint and Republican control of the White House and Congress, and between spending increases and Democratic control of those institutions. Since then, there has been hardly any correlation, despite the fact that Republican candidates for office generally claim to favor fiscal restraint and Democratic candidates for office generally claim to favor the expansion of government.

Consider the following:
Government Spending Per Capita 1947-2003

* In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
* During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
* When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
* The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
* During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

All this must come as a shock to the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that Democrats are spenders and Republicans want to cut government spending. The simple fact is that during the past 34 years, government spending has grown significantly faster when a Republican has sat in the White House.

But the old prejudice still seems to have some validity regarding Congress: Democratic-controlled congresses have increased spending at a rate more than twice the rate that Republican congresses have.

Government spending has grown fastest when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress. It has grown most slowly when a Democrat was president and Republicans controlled Congress.

* * *

To this point, everything I've written is strictly factual, derived from figures published by the Bureau of the Census and the Department of Labor. So far as I am able to determine, these facts cannot be unchallenged.

But they are open to interpretation, and what follows is an attempt to provide background and explanation for why the growth in government spending in relation to political control of Congress and the presidency has taken the course I've described above.
The Early Post-War Years (1947–1969)

The strong correlations between Democrats and spending and between Republicans and restraint during the early postwar period make perfect sense. The Democratic administrations of Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were characterized by war and the expansion of the welfare state, both of which are expensive projects, while the single GOP presidency was a time of peace and restraint.

Although Ike was criticized by many conservatives for not slashing government enough, government spending per capita actually fell during his presidency.


The domestic policy of President Harry Truman (fiscal years 1947–53) called for federal subsidies for (and control) of medical care, housing, and education, as well as other expansions of government programs, under the slogan of "The Fair Deal." Not all of Truman's ambitious program was enacted, but enough of it was implemented that in combination with the Korean War (which began in fiscal year 1950) government spending increased at an average rate of 6.77% during Truman's second administration.

John F. Kennedy (fiscal years 1962–65) was elected on a platform calling for increased government spending domestically and an aggressive anti-communist foreign policy. But a coalition of conservative southern Democrats and old-line Republicans made it difficult to enact his domestic program and, with the exception of his abortive invasion of Cuba in 1962, his war against communism didn't really come to fruition until after his untimely death. Spending grew at an average of 3.27% per year during his brief administration.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1965–69) called for a massive increase in the welfare state, under the slogan of the "Great Society," and greatly escalated the war in Vietnam, which Eisenhower had almost entirely avoided and for which Kennedy had laid the groundwork. Unsurprisingly, government spending increased rapidly during his presidency. During his only full term, spending rose at an average rate of 6.46% per year.

The only Republican to capture the White House during this period was World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower. Although he was criticized by many conservatives for not rolling back government as much as they wanted, his is the only administration since World War II in which government spending per capita actually fell. He combined fiscal restraint on domestic programs with an inclination to disentangle America from wars abroad: he presided over the end of the Korean War, refused to get involved in the wars in the Middle East, and did what he could to keep America from greater involvement in Vietnam. During the first two years of his administration, when he had the support of a GOP Congress, spending fell by more than 13%, but during the final two years, with the Democrats firmly in control of both houses of Congress, spending rose at an annual rate of 1.46%. Even with these increases, spending fell at an average annual rate of 0.70% during his administration.
The New Era (1970–2003)

The fact that Republican presidents have been bigger spenders than Democratic presidents during the past 34 years startles many people. This is probably a product of people's greater inclination to listen to the rhetoric of the candidates than to pay attention to what winning candidates actually do once they are in office.

Consider the case of Ronald Reagan. He called for cutting back government, but presided over a massive increase in the size and power of government, at least as measured by government spending per capita. Government spending during his administration grew at an average rate of 2.28%, nearly three times as fast as during the administration of Democrat Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush is establishing himself as the biggest spender since Lyndon Johnson.


Similarly, Richard Nixon was elected based on his promises to cut back government, but spending increased during his administration at a faster rate than during any subsequent administration except that of George W. Bush. Nixon pursued policies that he thought would maximize his chances for reelection and his historic reputation. He had no interest in repealing any of the Great Society measures. His "de-escalation" of the Vietnam War proceeded very slowly, and involved sending more troops and dropping more bombs. His legacy includes such expansions of government power as the War on Drugs and the Environmental Protection Agency. The result? During his years in the White House, government spending grew at an average rate of 2.31%, virtually identical to the rate during the Reagan years.
Total Government Spending

George W. Bush was elected on the strongest and most explicit conservative platform ever, yet he supported massive increases in military spending, created a whole new bureaucracy to fight the War on Terror, invaded two countries, and pushed through the largest single increase in welfare spending in decades. Not surprisingly, spending has grown the fastest during his years of any presidency since Lyndon Johnson's.

The other two Republican presidencies were different cases. Gerald Ford, who assumed the powers of the presidency when Nixon resigned in disgrace, was an old-line, fiscally conservative Republican who faced a very hostile and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Ford responded by using his veto power more frequently than any president before or since. The result was the lowest average annual spending increases of any presidency since Eisenhower.

George H. W. Bush was also a special case. He presided over a country that favored fiscal restraint and was elected largely because of his promise not to raise taxes. When he broke that promise, many Congressional Republicans treated him as if he were their enemy. Meanwhile, the Democratic majority in Congress, smelling blood, focused on making him look bad, sensing a victory of the White House for them. They succeeded. The result: spending grew at 1.15% per year during his presidency, the lowest rate of increase of any post-war president except Eisenhower.

The two Democratic presidents of this era faced radically different situations. Jimmy Carter was elected during post-Vietnam public cynicism about the military, and his years saw actual cuts in military spending. He eschewed most of the traditional Democratic calls for increases in welfare programs. Not surprisingly, spending grew at a relatively low 1.70% annual rate during his administration.

Bill Clinton is perhaps the most interesting case. He was elected very narrowly, on a platform that included a government takeover of the entire health-care system, the largest expansion of government power any president had proposed in decades. But he got only 43% of the vote, with the remaining 57% going to candidates who plainly opposed the measure and portrayed themselves as fiscal conservatives. Upon his wife's advice, he pursued the take-over of medicine in a manner so high-handed that, in combination with strong opposition from conservatives and libertarians, the entire package was abandoned.

After Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1994, Clinton, having no real political convictions, proclaimed that the "era of big government is over," and embraced other elements of the GOP agenda, such as welfare reform. The result was that spending grew at a rate of just 0.81% during his administration, the lowest growth rate since Eisenhower.

What can we learn about the future from this study? Past experience is not a perfect predictor of the future, but it seems far more likely that America's government will become larger, more powerful, and more expensive if George W. Bush is reelected than if he is defeated. A Democratic victory in either (or both) houses of Congress would likely accelerate this trend. Republican congresses combined with Republican presidencies during the past 34 years have consistently resulted in faster spending growth than Democratic presidencies. Democratic congresses have tended to increase spending faster than Republican congresses. And spending has grown faster with a Republican president and Democratic control of one or both houses of Congress than in any other situation. In addition, Bush is establishing himself as the biggest spender since Lyndon Johnson.

The election of John Kerry as president would likely result in slower spending growth, especially if Congress remains in control of the GOP, which seems overwhelmingly likely. Government spending grows most slowly with a Democrat in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress. While John Kerry's positions have been all over the place during the campaign, ranging from pro-war to anti-war, from support for the traditional Democratic tax-and-spend policies to "Bush lite" reforms, his record in the Senate is generally one of fiscal responsibility. And the Republicans, particularly those in the House of Representatives, have shown a strong inclination against all sorts of spending. But you never know.

Notes

Alert readers may notice that these figures for average annual per capita spending change for each presidential regime are very slightly different from those in my previous article, Freedom and Spending Under Reagan (October). This variance is the product of my using geometric means in this analysis rather than arithmetic means, which I initially eschewed because of the complexity of calculating geometric means from discontinuous data sequences.

For the sake of simplicity, I have ignored the peculiar "transition quarter" that occurred between fiscal years 1976 and 1977.

[jterrell]

Funny thing is the Dems love talking about corporate welfare as if it is the Republicans who do it and facts are so do they and as you said in also provides a benefits to this country

Both parties do it but Repubs are doing it more often and thus are having higher deficits and MORE spending.

Neo-Con means not really conservative at all!!!

[jterrell]

Anyone that does so is an idiot not worthy of my time.

Surely Eric you realize we should help put IBM and Exxon but put single mothers out on their ears.

:laugh2:

[theogt]

Surely Eric you realize we should help put IBM and Exxon but put single mothers out on their ears.

:laugh2:Like I said, you have a very simplistic, sophomoric political understanding.

[Doomsday101]

Both parties do it but Repubs are doing it more often and thus are having higher deficits and MORE spending.

Neo-Con means not really conservative at all!!!

Please stop the Dem party line BS, Clinton spent over 80 Billion in 94 on so called corporate welfare that you love spouting off as a republican problem it is not. We do have a higher deficit we have also had to help bailout and rebuild the City of New Orleans, since 9/11 we have had to spend money on Home Land Security and even the Dems say more needs to be done on that front and how is that going to happen without more money. So please stop the party line BS

[Eric_Boyer]

Like I said, you have a very simplistic, sophomoric political understanding.


Well - since we are critiquing others - you are a partisan hack.

[theogt]

Well - since we are critiquing others - you are a partisan hack.Strange considering I'm not a member of either party. I'm socially liberal. My problem is that I don't care enough about social issues (compared to economic issues) to vote for Democrats.

[jterrell]

Like I said, you have a very simplistic, sophomoric political understanding.

And you are very good at being naive and ignoring factual evidence.

Everything you have stated int his thread has basically been dis proven from a historical perspective and yet you are still yapping on about nothing at all. How you feel about politics doesn't change your inaccuracies and mis truths.

I am very aware of political realities and truths but more than that I am also willing to read new info and except possible inaccuracies.

[theogt]

And you are very good at being naive and ignoring factual evidence.

Everything you have stated int his thread has basically been dis proven from a historical perspective and yet you are still yapping on about nothing at all. How you feel about politics doesn't change your inaccuracies and mis truths.

I am very aware of political realities and truths but more than that I am also willing to read new info and except possible inaccuracies.Actually, nothing I've said has been disproven at all. You can come up with articles from political sources that will say anything. I pointed you toward the facts. If I had the time, I'd do the calculations for you.

[Eric_Boyer]

Strange considering I'm not a member of either party. I'm socially liberal. My problem is that I don't care enough about social issues (compared to economic issues) to vote for Democrats.

Anybody that writes a person off for the legitate use of corporate welfare is a partisan hack.

Hey - it's fun dealing in these absolutes like you did.

[theogt]

Anybody that writes a person off for the legitate use of corporate welfare is a partisan hack.

Hey - it's fun dealing in these absolutes like you did.No, they're not hacks themselves. That makes little sense. They just realize that politically charged terms are used by hacks.

This is a pretty simple concept.

[Eric_Boyer]

No, they're not hacks themselves. That makes little sense. They just realize that politically charged terms are used by hacks.

This is a pretty simple concept.

To even suggest a term such as corporate welfare - which is descriptive and not politically charged with a term such as baby killer tells me everthing I need to know about you.

You have wasted enough time avoiding factual debates for one day.

[burmafrd]

corporate welfare is a political term. Trying to say its not is the same as claiming the night is not dark. Any credibilty is lost.

By the way, was in a forum the other day and someone in denmark casually mentioned that their LOWEST tax bracket was 50%. OUCH!!!!!

[AtlCB]

Call me a skeptic.

Because I se no reason why a bill with pork attached couldn't get vetoed today. then congress will have to resubmit the bill without the pork. Walla - problem solved.

Of coure it might take a while longer to spend the money - but that ain't so bad.

the reality is pork is just a method of scratching each others backs. It came about naturally and won't cease with a line item veto.

My worst fear is eventually a bill that was altered with line item vetos doesn't even go back to congress - which means the president would have the power to legislate.
It's a game that politicians play. They attach a bunch of pork to bills for children's health care, important environmental legislation, etc. The president will usually give in. If he doesn't, the opposing party will have a press conference to say that the president doesn't care about children of the environment.

[Eric_Boyer]

corporate welfare is a political term. Trying to say its not is the same as claiming the night is not dark. Any credibilty is lost.

By the way, was in a forum the other day and someone in denmark casually mentioned that their LOWEST tax bracket was 50%. OUCH!!!!!

The term is universally accepted.

And you really don't have the clout to question anyones credibility.

[jterrell]

Actually, nothing I've said has been disproven at all. You can come up with articles from political sources that will say anything. I pointed you toward the facts. If I had the time, I'd do the calculations for you.

If you visit the site he ran the numbers, provided charts and calculated with GNP as well as accounted for inflation.

Bottom line is you are making an argument out of thin air not actual numbers.

[jterrell]

corporate welfare is a political term. Trying to say its not is the same as claiming the night is not dark. Any credibilty is lost.

By the way, was in a forum the other day and someone in denmark casually mentioned that their LOWEST tax bracket was 50%. OUCH!!!!!

So is welfare a political term.

Its all the same really.

It doesn't hurt my feelings if it is called tax breaks for corporations than again I do not get butt hurt when people call tax breaks for low income folks welfare or entitlements. It's just the modus operandi.

The work displayed above showed clearly that Repub President's spent more even when you removed military funding from the equation. Bush can cry about New Orleans but Reagen and pap Bush can't. The charts show the actual spending has occurred for over 30 years. Not since LBJ have we had a crazy spending Democrat. And we haven't had a fiscally conservative Republican in even longer.

Repubs offer huge tax breaks and incentives to corporations which was supposed to trickle down and create jobs but it doesn't work that way. IBM opens shops in China instead. So that trickle extends only to share holders and foreign countries such as India and China.

Read Alan Greenspan's works if you want a conservative voice on this. He admits where he miscalculated even.

[CowboyJeff]

corporate welfare is a political term. Trying to say its not is the same as claiming the night is not dark. Any credibilty is lost.

By the way, was in a forum the other day and someone in denmark casually mentioned that their LOWEST tax bracket was 50%. OUCH!!!!!

Denmark....now there's a country known for its cutting edge corporate innovations. :eek:

[burmafrd]

yo, boyer, what makes you think YOU have any credibility?

[jterrell]

Denmark....now there's a country known for its cutting edge corporate innovations. :eek:

Denmark is pretty nice.
It routinely wins awards for happiest citizenry.

41% of the population attend what we'd call college.

Bang and Olufsen is pretty cutting edge:)

I am a fan of the Vikings. lol.

[burmafrd]

Not one country in Europe is even a tenth the size or has even a 5th the population of the US. what makes anyone think that something that may work there will work here?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Not one country in Europe is even a tenth the size or has even a 5th the population of the US. what makes anyone think that something that may work there will work here?

Maybe you should consider that there might be at least possibly some merit in what is done in other countries and try it in the USA?

[jterrell]

Not one country in Europe is even a tenth the size or has even a 5th the population of the US. what makes anyone think that something that may work there will work here?

Russia is almost twice our size.

We weren't nearly as populated when we made this government.

China has about the same land mass and what 3 or 4 times the population? They are full on communism and we owe them enough to bankrupt us.

I am not suggesting we scrap our government and start over following anyone else's model but only true idiots ignore the methodologies of their peers.

[Sasquatch]

Not one country in Europe is even a tenth the size or has even a 5th the population of the US. what makes anyone think that something that may work there will work here?

People made the same argument about republics back in the eighteenth century. Glad we proved the skeptics wrong.

[burmafrd]

As usual Sasqie and others miss the point. As has been shown over the years, what works in one country MAY work in another and MAY not. Democracy is not working too well in Russia, is it? I hear a lot of complaints about socialized medicine where I live which is close to Canada. I lived in England for 3 years and heard a lot of complaints about THEIR system.
What works well in ONE culture may FAIL in another.

[Doomsday101]

Maybe you should consider that there might be at least possibly some merit in what is done in other countries and try it in the USA?

I don't know maybe because if we had the unemployment many of the countries in Europe had the majority of people would be hacked off. US is a capitalist country which is a big reason we have prospered as a nation and are considered one of the richest and powerful countries in the world. Of course we have our share of problems who doesn't? which country has the perfect system and everyone is happy? I would like to know that way next time a person from that country tries to move his family to the US we can tell him to take a hike. :laugh2:

[jterrell]

As usual Sasqie and others miss the point. As has been shown over the years, what works in one country MAY work in another and MAY not. Democracy is not working too well in Russia, is it? I hear a lot of complaints about socialized medicine where I live which is close to Canada. I lived in England for 3 years and heard a lot of complaints about THEIR system.
What works well in ONE culture may FAIL in another.

And it may work great.
You don't have to adopt someone's entire system to see how they handle various issues and apply limited lessons learned.

Much of Europe has better technology then us for instance. Should we have US-wide wi-fi? I say yes.

There are lots of things to be learned without "converting".

This concept that we are the only enlightened country and have all the good ideas is not just wrong, its totally and willfully ignorant.

I think the rest of the world should learn to play American football but we could drink Absinthe!

[Sasquatch]

As usual Sasqie and others miss the point. As has been shown over the years, what works in one country MAY work in another and MAY not. Democracy is not working too well in Russia, is it? I hear a lot of complaints about socialized medicine where I live which is close to Canada. I lived in England for 3 years and heard a lot of complaints about THEIR system.
What works well in ONE culture may FAIL in another.

Excellent point. Forcefully imposing democracy in the Middle East, for example, may or may not work. And because the outcomes are so unpredictable, it's probably not the most responsible way to spend billions of dollars that could be allocated to other areas where the outcomes are more assured, like health care.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I don't know maybe because if we had the unemployment many of the countries in Europe had the majority of people would be hacked off. US is a capitalist country which is a big reason we have prospered as a nation and are considered one of the richest and powerful countries in the world. Of course we have our share of problems who doesn't? which country has the perfect system and everyone is happy? I would like to know that way next time a person from that country tries to move his family to the US we can tell him to take a hike. :laugh2:

No one system is perfect. Hell, the fact American commentators are constantly complaining about this or that in the US is evidence of that point.

I think Canada is the best but even I know we can learn from others. I wish we had the consumer choices Americans have.

I wish our tax system was more like the US.

However, I think the US can learn from us in that no one up here goes without basic medical care. There is a smaller gap between the rich and poor.

[Doomsday101]

No one system is perfect. Hell, the fact American commentators are constantly complaining about this or that in the US is evidence of that point.

I think Canada is the best but even I know we can learn from others. I wish we had the consumer choices Americans have.

I wish our tax system was more like the US.

However, I think the US can learn from us in that no one up here goes without basic medical care. There is a smaller gap between the rich and poor.

I don't want to pay the high taxes that you pay in Canada. I don't want the government to be in charge of medical care. They mess up enough things without them screwing up my insurance. I'm glad you like yours but I find is strange than many from other countries come here when they are in critical need of medical care. I also find it strange that my doctor and his 2 partners are from Canada and do not think it is all that great of a system for them or those they treat.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I don't want to pay the high taxes that you pay in Canada. I don't want the government to be in charge of medical care. They mess up enough things without them screwing up my insurance. I'm glad you like yours but I find is strange than many from other countries come here when they are in critical need of medical care. I also find it strange that my doctor and his 2 partners are from Canada and do not think it is all that great of a system for them or those they treat.

The doctors probably don't like it because they make more money in the US although I must say I have never seen a doctor on a welfare line.

If you have a lot of money, health care is not an issue in the US, that is beside the point.

Our taxes are higher than in the US although some states like California and New York are as high.

[trickblue]

The doctors probably don't like it because they make more money in the US although I must say I have never seen a doctor on a welfare line.

If you have a lot of money, health care is not an issue in the US, that is beside the point.

Our taxes are higher than in the US although some states like California and New York are as high.

This neither here nor there, but most don't realize that it is against the law here to refuse emergency medical service to any citizen of the US.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I knew that but that is only basic emergency care isn't it?

[trickblue]

I knew that but that is only basic emergency care isn't it?

I don't believe so. I think it's any emergency care needed. Now if it's determined to need a later surgery they can refuse at that point although most areas have a hospital that provides free care to those with no insurance...

We also have an abundance of free clinics here.

[arglebargle]

I don't believe so. I think it's any emergency care needed. Now if it's determined to need a later surgery they can refuse at that point although most areas have a hospital that provides free care to those with no insurance...

We also have an abundance of free clinics here.

I don't think you have ever been to a free clinic. Though you can correct me if so.....

Basic medical care can save a lot of money, because medical problems get caught earlier, or never develop. Emergency room care is pretty expensive.

I think the whole medical arena needs to be examined seriously. Though I think any changes, even very worthwhile ones, would be strongly resisted by entrenched forces (medical establishment, insurance lobby, etc)

[trickblue]

I don't think you have ever been to a free clinic. Though you can correct me if so.....

Basic medical care can save a lot of money, because medical problems get caught earlier, or never develop. Emergency room care is pretty expensive.

I think the whole medical arena needs to be examined seriously. Though I think any changes, even very worthwhile ones, would be strongly resisted by entrenched forces (medical establishment, insurance lobby, etc)

No, I haven't been to a free clinic. What I meant was that I believe they have to treat you no matter what the condition in the hospital ER...

The free clinic scenario is just an avenue for minor care...

I wasn't taking one side or the other, it just seems that many don't realize that their is basic medical care available to those that need it. I'm not saying whether it is good or bad but that it does exist.

[arglebargle]

Gotcha.

And yes, the emergency rooms do provide the emergency care. But it is inefficient.

[trickblue]

Gotcha.

And yes, the emergency rooms do provide the emergency care. But it is inefficient.

I never said it was efficient and I didn't take a side, but politicians in this country make it sound like they have nothing at all.

[Sasquatch]

I never said it was efficient and I didn't take a side, but politicians in this country make it sound like they have nothing at all.

"We also have an abundance of free clinics here."

I thought we were living in a golden age of health care and I was the only one that didn't know about it.