Comments (6)

• David J. Heinrich

  This provokes another question of the division between economic man and moral man. On the one hand, the Austro-libertarian knows that Bush has been the worst President in recent history in terms of increasing spending and expanding the government, and that taxes have, in fact, overall increased. On the other, individually, he can benefit from many of Bush' plans, like HSA's (though these are already in effect, and will not be repealed). But some of the things Bush is proposing -- lifetime savings accounts and retirement savings accunts -- could be beneficial to the Austro-libertarian, and most certainly would not be passed under a Democratic presidency. Of course, if we take Rothbard's stand, this problem goes away. Government debt should not be repayed -- the government should default on it's obligation, thus obliterating the faith of potential loaners.

  Published: January 23, 2004 5:46 PM

• Tom Dougherty

  Except for Reagan, it looks like the Democrats are the party of Big Government and the Republicans are the party of even Bigger Government. That's ironic given the rhetoric of the two parties.

  Published: January 23, 2004 11:50 PM

• David Heinrich

  I wouldn't be so optimistic on Reagan. Remember, these are increases in *domestic* spending only. If I'm reading it right, it doesn't account for non-domestic spending. From what I've read it seems like the deficit and the government grew enormously under Reagan.

  Published: January 24, 2004 11:58 PM

• DSpears

  Domestic discretionary spending is a small proportion of the US federal budget. The real story here is that you can make serious cuts in discretionary spending (as Reagan did) and still not cut the size of the government very much. A large portion of the federal budget is entitlement transfer payments to individuals. There is no way elected officials are going to do anything about that.

  The real story here is that the War on terrorism isn't the biggest chunk of the increase in spending. Things like the Agriculture department, Eductaion department, and the EPA have had massive spending increases over the past couple of years. The massive give away to the richest and most politically active demographic in this country (senior citizens) is the first shot across the bow in the coming bloody battle over FDR's #1 disaster (social security). Things really get ugly when a majority of the country is on the dole while a minority of the country pays for it.

  As somebody who has voted Republican for my entire voting life, who believes more than ever in the Reagan Revolution (he certainly didn't accomplish everything he wanted but he had an uphill battle that no national politician since has attempted) the spending orgy which the Republican and Democratic parties have engaged in since 1998 is one of the bigger disappointments of my life. I expect it from Democrats, but Republicans are supposed to know better. It's no coincidence that the key Republicans that were in control of congress during the Clinton years when the spending picture was starting to improve(Gingrich, Army, Archer, etc) are no longer there.

  A just a clrification if anybody is trying to imply that Clinton was a spendthrift: If Clinton had had his way we'd all be carrying a national health ID card and 1/5 more of the US economy would be under direct federal control, probably at a spending level several times what was originally estimated, with the corresponding amount of taxes. Rebublicans (who were still in the minority then)were the last line of defense.

  Complaining about domestic discretionary spending is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If you're really serious about shrinking government you'd be talking about the looming disaster of entitlement payments before we get to the situation where a majority of the voting public receives benefits and a minority of the public pays for them.

  I must have missed that conversation.

  Published: January 26, 2004 7:51 AM

• Jeffrey

  An interesting picture of the point here, from the St. Louis Fed.

  Published: January 26, 2004 8:07 AM

• DSpears

  Just from looking at the quantities, that graph is not in real dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation), correct?

  How about a comparison with GDP?

  What does a graph of budget deficit as a percentage of GDP show?

  In a perfect world a deficit of zero (a surplus also causes economic problems) would be ideal, but it's hardly anything to panic about. A surplus didn'ty keep the economy from going in to recession in the fall of 2000. In fact the record tax bite that the federal government was taking out of the economy in the late 90's probably had something to do pushing the economy into recession.

  Again, the real problem is not taxes or deiscretionary spending, it's entitlements. The silence on that subject is deafening.

  Published: January 26, 2004 7:55 PM