The GOP Won the Spending War While No One Was Looking

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. FishingWFredo says:

    Gee, and I thought we had a budget deficit pushing $20 trillion! Good to hear we’re "winning the spending war!"

  2. Joe Shablotnik says:

    Does anyone wonder why Trump is ascendant?*

    Crap like this.

    Discretionary spending is only 37% of the Federal Budget.

    While the Federal deficit is shrinking

    It’s only because Federal revenues are skyrocketing.

    Let’s look at the Federal Debt while we are here

    Is this some sort of Pyrrhic victory? We saved 2.5 Trillion?

    We’re only going over the fiscal cliff at 50 rather than 60 mph!

    There’s also this, genius: Opportunity cost. Figure out if the GOP actually possessed some huevos and got rid of Medicare as well! Or reformed Social Security when they had the chance.

    *I’m a Cruz supporter

  3. yestraday says:

    The debt is still 17 Trillion, or 19 Trillion or whatever! Nobody wins when this is the case.

  4. somebodys_kid says:

    I think a better metric would be "Federal Government Spending as a % of GDP" or "Federal Government spending per Citizen". I don’t think it’s unreasonable for federal spending to increase at a similar or slightly lower rate than the rates at which GDP or population increase.

    I haven’t verified the data on these charts, but if true, federal spending as a proportion of GDP FELL for FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS.
    I’m willing to bet that most people who still can’t see any silver lining in the past few years of budgets have an answer for the question, "What proportion of GDP should government spending be?" My own answer is "No greater than 10%" The past four years have moved us incrementally closer to that. So that’s something to celebrate.

  5. TG Chicago says:

    "For example, Bush’s last budget proposal showed a federal government that was on track to produce a balanced budget within a few years."

    Given that this proposal was released before the Great Recession, I’m not sure this is terribly relevant.

  6. Nick says:

    This is true…
    Except for in the last year, when the GOPe has decided to stuff the Sequestration and go hog wild.

  7. roscopico says:

    Is my memory incorrect when I recall that Obama/Pelosi/Reid passed the "stimulus" in 2008 which was then baked into the baseline of the federal budget (through the acquiescence of the feckless Boehner-led House)?
    Okay, guy. Make your case starting the first graph in 2007. You can’t, so you didn’t try.

    I call shenanigans on this.

  8. CrispyBason says:

    I’m not sure about the value of comparing actual spending to "a curious document that acts as part wishful thinking and part a projection of hope into the future." I need more information. In light of the recession, was his projection somewhat tempered? Was it much fantasy? And accordingly was it an act of political bravery to not go along with it? How about previous presidents’ first projections versus actual spending? Compared to non-partisan spending projections before Obama, how did we fare?

  9. DocMerlin says:

    Um, spending wasn’t cut, the rather absurdly large projections of increased spending were cut. Actual spending increased every year.

    • Matthias Shapiro says:

      This is factually untrue. I leave it to you to figure out which year saw an actual decrease in spending.

      If you can’t tell me which year it was, then we know that you were unable to even find the data.

  10. DocMerlin says:

    Furthermore, not only was no spending cut, but the last years of the Bush admin, it increased so absurdly that it more than made up for lower increases during Obama’s tenure.

  11. Valley Forge says:

    Better comparison is spending as % of GDP and esp vs revenue. Deficits have been declining but historically high with further improvement unlikely.

    But Boehner is panned because he promised in 2010 to reduce absolute spending by 100 Billion in 2011 on path to returning to 2008 spending level (about 600 Billion absolute cut).

  12. Kimbo slice says:

    So what! We are still bleeding. More slowly perhaps, but I am not inclined to celebrate until we actually don’t have a deficit and are paying down our debt. This is just some small accomplishment toward the real goal. It’s like celebrating after getting a B in a tough class but you still have 3 years of college ahead of you. Pat on the back, but still a long way from graduation.

  13. Bob says:

    Thanks for posting this. I had no idea.

    It should also be noted that most in the 47% would have been delighted by unlimited spending increases, since we’re addicted to printing & borrowing money, and the funds that are raised through taxes don’t come from them anyway. They will read your story and think, "what a shame."

  14. The Dividist says:

    A little late to the party here, but an excellent post.

    I am an advocate for a divided government voting heuristic on my blog. One reason for my voting preference, is that it is a historical, statistical fact that federal spending is documented to be restrained under divided government vs either unified GOP or Democratic governments. Your post points out the most recent evidence for that fact.

    No, divided government does not offer the (unrealistic) radical restructuring of leviathan that many on the right would prefer. It just works in a reliable incremental fashion to moderate the worst impulses of both parties. That’s good enough for me.

    And BTW – Welcome to the United Coalition of the Divided!

  15. Paradox is an amazing blog of project. On this project much things are discuss that are about the public privileges and government rules. This is extremely informative information for us and very good point of conversation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *