Republican policymakers have an extremely narrow policy agenda: cut spending. Every speech, every press release, every op-ed, and every interview features identical talking points about the "explosion of out-of-control government spending" in the Obama era, which GOP officials are desperate to address.
There's the rhetoric and then there's the reality.
Matt Yglesias flagged this chart showing the trajectory of total government spending at the federal level, and I added a nice, big arrow to point to the Obama-era spending (the gray areas reflect recessions). Matt explained, "[T]aken as a whole, consolidated government spending -- federal, state, and local -- simply hasn't surged. You can take the beginning of the recession or the beginning of the Obama administration or whatever you like as your starting point and it still hasn't happened."
That is not, incidentally, good news. After the Great Recession, the nation needed significant public investment to create jobs and boost economic growth. With interest rates at ridiculously low levels, the responsible thing to do was borrow like crazy and spend a lot more. Additional investments would mean lower unemployment and a faster, more robust recovery.
But policy prescriptions and Keynesian economics notwithstanding, the facts are the facts: every time Republicans whine incessantly about President Obama spending like there's no tomorrow, they're simply wrong.
What's more, Bloomberg News published a fascinating item today providing some useful historical context: "Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president."
Robert Reischauer, a former director of the CBO, told Bloomberg that other than the Recovery Act, which was temporary stimulus spending, discretionary spending over the last few years "has been quite modest and is scheduled to go to levels we haven't experienced in modern times."
The conservative case has it backwards. The right wants to focus on debt reduction when we should be focused on jobs, and the right believes out-of-control spending is soaring when it's actually stalled.
Leave a Comment:
The Republicans need to tell us, in concrete dollars, what they want to stop spending on.
And then put it to a public referendum.
They don't trust the public; after all, that same public re-elected Barack Obama, proving that the GOP can't steer them to the result their corporate backers would like.
Using the Consumer Price index for inflation adjustment, governmental spending is about 20% higher today than it was in 1960.
that translates into about $700,000,000 annually...
surely there are areas which can be cut. I dont remember people in 1960 saying that we needed to be spending that much more money. According to Democrats, those were the golden days under Kennedy/Johnson.
just saying...
Lets start with teachers that got pensions while cheating students out of a good education, in fact lets start in red states such as Texas where they go over board in keeping kids ignorant and dumb. After all tax payer dollars were used for them to provide a good education for the tax payers and conservative teachers failed miserably at doing the job.
Republican World: black is white, in is out, day is night, left is right, up is down.
And especially for Stormtrooper, "War is peace".
Two, possibly three, attacks against me and not a single shred of evidence to refute anything I said. I guess you guys/gals are either too stupid or too lazy to do work to disprove my comments...or...it means my facts are correct. Which is it?
just saying...
In 1960, our population was 179 million. Now it's 309 million. Our population has grown by 73% since 1960 and government spending, normalized for inflation has increased only 20% according to your calculation. More people means more roads, more need for air traffic control, more highways, more federal law enforcement, more ports and navigational aids and rescue, more people in the parks. More everything.
Moreover, we also didn't have Medicare under Kennedy and the Boomers demographic bubble was in its productive years contributing to, rather than drawing from, Social Security. Get rid of Medicare and we're behind again. And I'm sure the Boomers wouldn't mind if you took it from them, right?
Our defense spending has skyrocketed, and is the largest section of government spending; if you want cuts, that's where to start. Then you can move on to corporate welfare. Corporations making 8 or 9 figures of profit do not need tax breaks or incentives to do business.
So, Stormguy, those are cuts. Are you willing to get behind them?
Grumpy...I think there is money that can be cut from every budget. I am against the government cherry picking winners and losers regarding whether a company is or is not making enough money that they should lose their tax benefits. Once you begin saying that someone has made too much is saying that someone else has not made enough. Businesses should live or die on their own, not because of government intervention. Remember, these companies that are making the large profits are distributing the proceeds to shareholders ... many of whom are union pension plans across the country.
Steve..In 1960, there were far fewer workers to feed the treasury. Today there are many more. The answer is not to take benefits away from people who have paid into it, but to find a way for future generations to participate in a system which is not set up like a ponzi scheme.
just saying...
Lol! Ah yes, the Magic of the Marketplace! That sort of thing is why "free market capitalism" is a de facto quasi-religion.
But that's just it: the GOP legislators favoring corporate welfare have already put their finger on the scale, and in favor of those who are doing fine already. They've picked "winners" through the influence of lobbyists paid for by those inflated profits, thereby making a mockery of the idea of a free market and demonstrating the control that these giants have on the legislative process to benefit themselves, not the people of the US. Those companies have plenty to pay out to their investors; the drop in payouts would be minimal, if even noticeable, but it would have a positive effect on the nation's finances as well as cease lobby-based favoritism. If Exxon needs incentives to drill for oil, then perhaps it needs to close up shop, since that's an indicator that it can't survive in the actual market.
I also note you didn't address the out-of-control DoD spending.
Grumpy...I did address it..I said that there is money that can be cut from EVERY budget...
If you think that it has only been GOP legislators that have passed laws which favor businesses, you are as much of a lemming as all of the other liberal bloggers on this site. I dont like either side doing it.
just saying...
Not all budget outlays are equal, and the tax money going to health or research or the like are in no way similar to the bloated, out-of-control defense budget. There's cuts, and then there's cuts that would actually DO something other than victimizing the weak, as the GOP's desired cuts to Social Security and other social safety nets would do. But I'm guessing that you don't really care about that. Care to prove me wrong?
"Just saying..."; is that your way of denoting "I know I'm being a tool, but it's not my fault"? Because your blinkers are seriously thick, and you're not actually here to discuss anything, otherwise you'd make actual counterpoints instead of just insinuations and ad hominems.
Put forth a reasonable plan and I will be happy to look at it. Your idea of bloated in one area could be someone elses idea of being too little and vice versa. I personally not in favor of cutting Social Security, but I am in favor of allowing individuals the right to either opt out of the system or develop a program which allows them to keep the money in their name. the current systems sucks.
The only thing thick around here is your head.
just saying...
Grumpy...,
"Just saying..."; is that your way of denoting "I know I'm being a tool, but it's not my fault"?
It's an intellectually dishonest attempt to avoid responsibility for spreading malicious misinformation because he is "just saying...wink wink, nudge nudge"
And there we go with the ad hominem, rather than even an attempt at proving me wrong. Anyone who looks at the defense budget and says "Ya know, that just isn't big enough" isn't dealing in objective or factual reality. The current SS system works great, when conservatives stop trying to sabotage it to prove it doesn't work. That's like cutting the brake lines and then complaining that the car won't stop.
Fine.
Cancel the Aegis Combat System construction, bomber aircraft construction, and half the rest of the military because most of it became obsolete when we developed the capability to fly missiles through a bedroom window from 12,000 miles away.
We only need half the military we have unless you want to entertain the possibility of invading China and the Soviet Union simultaneously like what we did during World War II.
Being able to invade one country at a time is enough.
I don;t remember us invading Russia and China during WWII. However, I do believe we need to have the resources to fight more than one war at a time. That does not mean we can not make cuts in the military.
just saying...
Grumpy...if you think the current SS system works fine, then you can stay in it. If the current system works so wonderfully, why are you worried that people would leave it if there was an option to do so?
Nowhere did I say that the Defense budget isn;t big enough. But typical for a liberal, when you begin to lose a debate, you start lying about what the other person has said.
The concept of allowing workers to place a small percentage of their SS contribution in an account which they control how the investment is made is not outrageous. Why are you afraid of letting people have control of some of the money they earned during their lifetime? Why should that money not be available to that person's heirs when they pass away?
Why are you so greedy that you want everyone else's money?
just saying...
Stormtrooper demonstrates why it is impossible to have a reasonable debate with those on the right. They start out lying, lie all the way through, and finish by lying.
I'm not worried about them leaving it; I'm worried about the GOP jackbooted method of FORCING them to leave it, by destroying the system to "encourage" alternate enrollment. That's what their plans have amounted to, to date.
And again, the ad hominems don't work. The faux concern doesn't either.
Entropy...Man up for once in your life and find one lie anywhere in any of my posts...
cmon...it should be easy enough for someone as bright as you...you make all these claims about me lying...
try to find one..
just saying...
You disc is stuck and your posturing is childish. You aren't worth any effort. AMF.
Just as I thought...all yap...
I guess you arent nearly as bright as you thought you were...
Now do us all a favor...STFU!
just saying...
being on the right side of the aisle doesn't mean you're on the right (correct) side of reality
Just more lies as usual from the demented right ! Also more smoke and mirrors to avoid the American Jobs crisis !
Ugh. This kind of talk isn't helpful.
Exile Bush and Cheney to Siberia with nothing more than a pair of flip-flops to share between themselves !
Well ............ both of them were found guilty of war crimes, so it is possible they will be arrested the next time they show themselves in public.
We keep hearing that business and Wall Street don't like uncertainty. Doesn't a mere 3-month extension of the debt ceiling create/continue uncertainty? I think Republicans will continue 3-month extensions to "prove" that the economy can't/didn't recover under Obama. That will lead people to think that we need more Republicans in Congress and the White House. They have demonstrated that they have a long-term and quiet (ok, sneaky, behind-the-scenes) plan. They are systematically taking over as many state legislatures as possible and imposing their radical right-wing policies at the state level. They will continue at the state level and at the federal level. Republicans like war because they make money on it. If the government can't spend fast enough for the war, they run up the debt. Then they want to cut social programs to pay the debt, so they get paid twice. Gerrymandering, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-poverty, anti-union, anti-voter, anti-regulations that protect the UNwealthy from their deviousness: all are parts of a coherent plan.
Yep, manufactured uncertainty. The "I'm rubber, you're glue" follow-up is coming. Just wait for it.
I think the extension is tied to the senate passing a budget. Perhaps wall streets uncertainty is buoyed by hope?
Facts don't do what I want them to.
-Shooter (Blankman)
Aborted fetuses are lazy, live on the public dole and refuse to work as sexual devients!
-Scott-arded
I've filled in for the trolls now!
I've deviated..
I think Obamacare covers that...
Just to break it down a little further, check out the comparison of Bush's spending levels to Obama's.
Can someone tell me again why the Tea Party freaked over Obama's out-of-control spending, but not Bush's?
I'll take "Partisan Politics" for $100, Alex.
Dan...The Tea Party was formed in 2006 in part to protest the massive spending wave that was taking over Washington. Much to the chagrin of Democrats, the Tea Party was not created as a result of Obama being elected, not did it have anything to do with his race. Tea stands for Taxed Enough Already.
So, in reality, they did "freak out" over Bush's spending also, but remember that "Bush's spending" was actually that of a Democratic controlled Senate and HOR in 2007 and 2008.
just saying....
Well re reg you just prove what everyone knew, tea baggers are dumber then a box of rocks...................just saying.
IOKIYAR.
Stormguy - Funny that everyone else dates the formation of the Tea Party to April 15, 2009. Also funny that a party whose name stands for "Taxed Enough Already" appears to advocate a huge tax hike on poor Americans - known to them as the moochers and takers, or the 47 percent.
Bush had a Republican Congress for a good part of his administration and the debt did not magically appear when Dems took over the Senate and House. He kept the wars off the books and that along with the tax cuts are the major causes of the debts. Bush inherited a surplus and transformed it into major debt with the Republicans. It is disingenuous for Republicans and TP'ers to say that Bush was not a conservative; they voted for him and his policies. The Republicans do not get to runaway from their responsibility for the debt. If they were really concerned about the debt and deficit, then they would have done something well before Obama came to office.
The Tea Party is an astroturf group and not a grassroots organization; that has been clearly established. It is merely an extension of radicals that existed within the Republican party that was left leaderless after Bush. These radicals took over the party and they could have protested when Bush started the TARP, but they didn't. Now they are trying to make Obama the scapegoat for all the economic problems that Republicans have created with 30 years of Reaganomics. Trickle down is dead now that the middle class has been finally realized that there is no amount of money that will ever make the wealthy happy and any taxes regardless of the amount will make them cry. The party for the wealthy is over.
Stormguy53, I am having a difficult time finding anything to back up this 2006 formation. There was some early Ron Paul action, but that was during the '08 campaign. What's your source for that, please?
Can someone tell me again why the Tea Party freaked over Obama's out-of-control spending, but not Bush's?
IOKIYAR
Hey Stormtrooper: tyhe Tea Party was founded as a Republican astroturf disinformation campaign in 2009 to oppose Obamacare.
You ignorant Nazis need to keep your facts straight.
Fran...since you asked so nicely, I am happy to oblige,,
According to the website:
http://www.what-is-the-tea-party.com...
"The Tea Party movement is not a registered national political party as of Feb., 2010 and “Tea Party” or “Tea Party Movement” has not appeared on any ballots. However there is a U.S. political party called the Boston Tea Party which advocates a libertarian ideology and was named after the famous 1773 Boston Tea Party. "
"The Boston Tea Party was formed in 2006 by former Libertarian Party members with the agenda of reducing the power of government (including its size and scope) on all issues and at all levels."
This was the foundation from which the Tea Party movement sprang...though major protests did not occur until 2009 and national attention helped it to grow.
Governmental spending is up 20% when compared to 1960 and adjusted for inflation. That is about $700,000,000 annually.
just saying...
TC...maybe the same reason that Democrats are freaking out over Republicans gerrymandering voting districts, yet they never had a problem with the practice when they were in the position to do the same thing..
IOKIYAD
just saying...
Dan...please provide evidence to your statement that Tea Party members appear to advocate a tax hike on poor Americans. their official position was to maintain the BUSH tax rates for all Americans. It is the Democrats who were in favor of destroying the structure that was in place.
just saying...
Storm: Actually, according to your own link: "The Tea Party is a political movement that largely began in 2009 with protests that were sponsored both locally and nationally."
Oh, and anyone who pays attention to Tea Party rhetoric should know one of the group's primary goals is to do something about the 47 percent of Americans they believe are "getting a free ride from wealthy Americans on things like the military, federal education, and border control."
Dan...and LARGELY indicates that there was some other point in time at which it began...as is evidenced by the link I provided.
I might have to give you credit on the fact that making people who dont currently pay anything contribute to the solution instead of continuing to be part of the problem would be a tax increase. However, in that situation, I am all in favor of a tax increase.
just saying...
No, Storm, that means that there may have been one small group somewhere else that referred to itself as the Tea Party, but the movement we all know and love got its real start only after Obama took office.
Oh, and thanks for confirming my point on the tax increase for the poor.
I'm going to chime in here just to add a factoid to the discussion... I've been a "47-percenter" several times by virtue of the fact that when my husband was stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't pay taxes on his Army paycheck.
Does that make us part of the problem? Of course not. And I seriously doubt that anybody in politics is looking to change THAT particular policy.
Griping about the "47 percent" as if they are all deadbeats is silly, because it only takes a little bit of imagination to be able to figure out how it's mostly populated, and a bit of research to dig up the rest.
There's no honesty in the meme, because what the gripers APPEAR to be complaining about is the much smaller number of people who DON'T pay any tax, but really SHOULD. And that "should" is not the subject of much debate, anywhere, really. Who's in there that SHOULD pay? Part-timers scraping by on half a job? People living below the poverty line? Military families with the primary breadwinner in Afghanistan? No... no... no... ok well then who? So it's just a vague straw man that somehow makes somebody feel good by giving them something to b*tch about. (Aw, those rotten no-good 47-percenters... they should be paying more taxes, not the rest of us...)
Just my 47 (per) cents.
Stormguy53
I’m curious, where did you get the 2006 date? I googled “The Tea Party” and what I found was that “the Tea Party Movement and Freedom Works Movement, which began in February 2009,…”
http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=10970
Sounds like a response to the Obama election to me.
Yes there have been Boston Tea Party like protesters throughout out the 1990, but they are not the same groups as today.
As to your “...Democratic controlled Senate and HOR in 2007 and 2008” see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html this site shows
that 109th Congress (years 2005-2007), Senate: 44 Dems to 55 Reps and the
House: 202 Dem to 231 Reps.
That 110Th Congress (years 2007-2009) Senate: 49 Dems to 49 Reps and the
House: 233 Dem to 198 Reps
How are you getting Democratic control from these numbers?
Dan Radmacher
In answer to your question The Tea Party we know now did not exist during Bush’s time 2001-2009 and the majority of Congress’ members during this time were Republications.
The Republication have not shown that they are insane enough to complain about government spending while they are making a fortune off of it.
Old Bat,
Those on the right are inordinately fond of pretending that their ideologically sound distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies are somehow "evidence" and "facts". They have little or no use for objective reality.
@Stormguy,
You left something out that the whole rest of the world has figured out without my help.
Crack...First, you are getting really desperate for a source when you rely on Al Jazeera for your information.
Secondly...unless I am mistaken, NOWHERE in that article does the statement you have highlighted as your link actually appear. Additionally, in 2006, Obama was just a junior senator from Illinois and there was little expectation that he would be a serious threat to capture the presidency against Hillary. Obama did not announce his candidacy for president until February of 2007.
So...you use an unreliable source and then you lie about what the article says. That kind of shoots down all of your credibility.
just saying
Translation from Baggerspeak: "unreliable source" = anyone or anything that is not Ideolgically Sound/Theologically Correct.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I often have a hard time understanding Steve's charts. It looks to me like spending took a kinda steep incline around 2009. I would appreciate someone explaining it to me.
That was what the real GWB spending spree really cost once all of the GOP spending was put back on the books.
Thanks, whomitmay. Sometimes those charts leave me scratching my head. does anyone else have that issue?
When faked up accounting, like paying for two wars off the books through borrowing, is normalized, it can get confusing.
Climbing is when the line keeps going up as you move to the right.
The chart "flatlined" in 2009 (i.e.: stopped climbing).
The "steep incline" happened BEFORE Barack Obama was elected.
The steepest climb was between 2000 and 2008 while Bush #2 doubled federal spending while simultaneously collapsing the economy by outlawing Mexicans and managing to be convicted of war crimes. That is called a trifecta.
By the way.
Has anyone seen George W in public lately or has he been deported?
I thought about that, too, Cowgirl55. It does matter where you draw the "starting line" on this graph for the Obama administration.
Yours is not a bad hypothesis, whomitmay... I'm thinking stimulus package and two wars? But as a loyal Rachel viewer I'd want to see some evidence to support this idea before buying it.
Really you want proof even after RM has been ranting about it for the last 4 years, LMFAO.
whomitmay, yes, we agree in theory that there was a change in fiscal accountability showing the cost the two wars and stimulus. What I'm wondering is, how did putting it "back on the books" affect this graph? That's the kind of evidence I'm talking about, not really "did it happen" so much as "how". What changed? The budget numbers?
Fran...I will ask you since you seem to be a reasonable person to discuss matters with.
Democrats love to use the phrase that the cost of the two wars and other things under Bush were "off the books". What exactly does it mean for the cost to be "off the books"? Prior to the cost of the two wars being "put back the books" where was the cost? It had to be reflected somewhere. If it wasn't on the books, was it reflected in the national debt? the deficit?
just asking...
Stormguy, sounds like we have some of the same questions. I'm reading this article to learn more on that topic... if anybody has another link to offer with a reputable source I'd appreciate it.
Fran the thing is this has been talked about, links that showed the facts and everything else had been posted time after time after time. People like re reg just ignored it most of us refuse to play that game any longer. The 2008 market crash with the following recession that caused unemployment to jump didn't end the day Obama took office. I guess you missed out on the bikini graft as well as everything else that happened after Obama took office.
Don't scold like a schoolmarm. I haven't missed the bikini graph, or ignored Obama's achievements. I'm just not willing to pretend I know more than I do, which is why I answered Stormguy's questions with a link to a good source and a request for help. Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute, or does it just make you feel smart to fuss at me like that?
Fran...When I read the article you attached, what I get from it is that the cost of the war was not specified in the budget for the Defense Department, but yet was still paid for from the funds that were allocated to them. It seems the concept of "not on the books" is a term used to simply indicate there is not a line item for the specific costs.
Do you read it another way?
just saying...
OK. That was scary.
OMG! they travel in pairs.
"Going up" is when the line keeps "going up" as you move to the right.
The chart "flatlined" in 2009 (i.e.: stopped "going up").
Going down is when the lined "goes down" as you move to the right (unless you are Monica Lewinsky).
Bush #2 doubled government spending between 2000 and 2008 as he simultaneously collapsed the economy by outlawing Mexicans and getting himself convicted of war crimes. The trifecta of bonehead stupidity.
Anyone want to take bets on when Dubya will be spirited out of the country for Geneva convention violations?
"Republican policymakers have an extremely narrow policy agenda: cut spending"
They only want to cut "spending" on WE the PEOPLE; after all they won't cut welfare (subsidies) to BIG OIL/COAL/PHARMA/Agribusiness/Defense Contractors - NO, those already rich people need more redistribution of our tax money upward!
So much for that argument....
Once you understand how the spending-vs.-austerity prinicple works, it becomes clear that surely at least some Republicans understand this. They are so afraid we might finally get spending approved, heal the economy and then see their raison d'etre disappear into thin air. Might be the end of the Radical Right.
could you add a couple of other lines or numbers such as the deficit and the cost of the wars, the bush tax cuts and revenue drop from the recession - how about the job loss for teachers?
what about CEO pay and bonus's? could get to be very jackson pollacky!
Cheap money = investment banks leveraged speculating, of which 3% might go to job creation?
Yep your all right!
You caught me. The goverment doesnt waste any taxpayer dollars. I made it all up.
Oh looky...it's another troll who needs a remedial English course.
Coming from you Entropy, that is really funny.
just saying...
They do waste money its called corporate welfare.
whom...,
They are not only malicious, they are pathologically greedy.
Thats it? Just corporate welfare? Oh, i thought there might be more. Well, that's not too bad then. Especially since Obama is just as guilty as anyone for that.
So by all means, dont stop with just 16 trillion. Feel free to steal from my Great Grankids's Great Grandkids's kids too!
Yeah, sure, as if those on the right actually give a damn about future generations!
To bad for you that 16 trillion you righties keep whining about is from republicans running away from the bill collectors since 1981.
Good post but one really has to deflate. Nominal spending isn't an interesting variable. Here I deflate by the (chained) GDP deflator. After correcting for inflation I see that *Federal* government expenditures did jump during the recession (the ARRA and automatic stabilizers).
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=104155&category_id=0
also at http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com
By the second quarter of 2012 (when the graph ends) GDP deflator deflated spending was back to trend.
The recent movements don't look all that different from the nominal graph (of course deflated spending has gone up less as inflation has been positive)
I stress this is Federal spending. Overall spending is even further from the Republican fantasy.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=104157&category_id=0
also also at http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com
Finally I have there the log of the ratio of total government spending to the (chained) GDP deflator which shows a rapid rate of growth in the 60s (Vietnam, boomers going to school and the war on poverty) and slow growth since Obama was inaugurated (the 50 little Hoover effect).