Mitt Romney's economic speech in Chicago yesterday and the Paul Ryan's new House Republican budget have something important in common: they offer a vision that's at odds with reality.
To hear these leading Republicans tell it, President Obama has strangled the domestic economy with countless regulations and runaway binge spending. We know that first point is completely wrong -- not only do regulations not hurt the economy, but the number of regulations has gone down, not up, under Obama.
But about the second point? Everyone knows Obama has increased spending, right? Wrong. Mark Thoma published this helpful chart showing per capita spending per administration for the last four decades.
Mark Thoma, Economist's View
"This," Andrew Sullivan noted, "is the kind of reality that makes Sean Hannity's head explodes."
Derek Thompson added, "Going by federal expenditures ... it would seem that if Obama's a socialist, Ronald Reagan is Karl Marx with an ICBM."
I'd just add one nagging detail: this isn't good news or something the White House should necessarily brag about. Given the nature of the economic crisis, the national economy needed more spending, not less. Under these circumstances, the recovery would have been faster and more robust if Congress and the Obama administration had spent like, well, most modern Republican administrations.
More capital in the system would mean more growth, more jobs, and a more sustained recovery. The above chart is fascinating, but it's not encouraging.
That said, it does make one detail clear: Republicans who whine about Obama spending and regulating to excess have no idea what they're talking about.
Leave a Comment:
Yet more proof that Republican politics depends upon frequent trips to the lie-barry.
Unless the title of the chart doesn't mean what it says, you're misinterpreting this graph. The title says "Growth in Real Per Capita Government Spending." If that is what the chart is showing, it means spending is higher under Obama than his predecessors (because the rate of growth is still positive), but the rate at which spending is growing is slower.
The chart and Steve are correct. The X-axis is the annualized percent of growth in government spending, the Y-axis is by president. Under Pres. Obama, on a real per capita basis government spending has grown by about 1.25% per year while under Reagan, per capita growth per year was 2.6% and when Bush The Younger was president it was also about 2.6%.
I read the original piece by Mark Thoma when he published it about 10 days ago and the figures were adjusted for population growth.
Charley - They can't both be right. Either the graph shows actual per capita spending, as Steve indicates, or it shows growth in per capita spending as the title indicates. Per capita, by definition, indicates it is based on population.
The chart does show that the rate of growth in government spending has slowed, but that is not the same as reducing government spending, as Steve is implying occured.
It doesn't matter if they are correct or truthful. What they(republicans) are counting on is that their voting BASE is buying what they are selling. Now let's face it, that particular base believes and buys every line of garbage spouted by the party, and believes that liberals and democrats are "socialist" and therefore "the enemy". That is what is terrifying. It is only when people in their own base start questioning things that they back off of or spin a particular lie (and sometimes not even then).
"More capital in the system would mean more growth, more jobs, and a more sustained recovery."
It also might have been a guarantee for a second term for the Obama administration! As it stands, we've got to wait out the GOP "crazy & deranged" campaign for President just to give the American voters a chance to see all the crazies and the lone sane, intelligent, articulate, level-headed one on the democrat ticket.
From the end of the article:
"That said, it does make one detail clear: Republicans who whine about Obama spending and regulating to excess have no idea what they're talking about."
All Republicans do it...is the article suggesting that there are Republicans who DO know what they're talking about?
Exactly! Well said
Republicans live in the Fox bubble, so actual facts don't penetrate it. Here only the words of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Ann Coulter can be heard
Fulfilling their tactic of spending like crazy when in power then complaining like mad about the deficit and debt when out of power Republicans are still managing to keep Democrats from spending for much needed social programs by using the filibuster in the senate to prevent any good legislation from getting through.
Plus republicans have a huge well organized media support group including 'think tanks' to progress their agenda...obtaining power and protecting the interests of the wealthy and their transnational corporations. Thanks to the SC Citizens United ruling they can just buy elections, candidates and spend millions spreading misinformation.
What's to stop them from just stealing the elections, and using their newly elected people to prevent investigations with their media propaganda machine twisting the truth on a daily basis.
I'm not paranoid...just hopeful that enough people are not suckered into falling for the Money Party Agenda...that they can not be persuaded by he who spends the most money...believing in solutions more than attacks. But let's do more after dems win the next election to make sure all this stays well beyond even my paranoid scenario. Ryan's wealthy minded fantasy world is a waste of attention.
This," Andrew Sullivan noted, "is the kind of reality that makes Sean Hannity's head explode."
I would pay higher taxes to see that!
First, regulations do cost. You can argue there is a social benefit to regulations, But you can't argue they don't cost. When I worked, I saw staffs increase just to implement and perform all the ongoing reporting requirements. Staffs cost money and get imbedded in the total cost of a product or service. Guess who pays for those costs - the consumer.
Second, by showing the Pres in good light by comparing his spending to other presidents makes for interesting historical discussion. But, the fact is he continues to increase spending, thus adding to the deficit and the debt.
We are where we are with no solution to our current situation - unfunded entitlements, deficits, and increasing debt.