Fiscal Conservatism.
Posting this here as an answer to a question Deanna asked me today via email and not locking it to friends-only so she can just link to it.
Subject: Help
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:21:14 -0400
I need a smart retort to this:
But I think it's hilarious that Republicans still get to carry the "fiscally conservative" flag, after Reagan and the Bushes. Everybody likes to claim that they're fiscally conservative. But, in the real world, it is the Dems who have proven to be fiscally conservative. Reagan, the King of Deficit Spending, quadrupled the national debt for the first time in history, and Bush, well, look around you now. There's no money left (it's all in the pockets and accounts of the wealthy), the debt has been massively increased again, and we practically owe China our souls. Yet, Republicans still think they get to claim that they're the "fiscally conservative" party. Curious at best.
The short answer to that question is that it comes from the traditional roles, created by the fundamental ideals of the parties as well as modern history and the party reactions. The Republicans ARE the fiscally conservative party -- that doesn't change if they go off the reservation any more than the Democratic party changes it's left-wing bias when a moderate like Clinton becomes president. What happens, obviously, is a member of either party moves towards or away from the center and the other party reacts with opposing rhetoric. The left's spending spree in the last five months, and budget, are why Republicans are once again going to the "fiscally conservative" card -- if there's a Democrat right now that thinks Obama is a "fiscal conservative" they are simply ignorant of his spending and future spending plans.
The longer answer:
One, you have to look at more than just the last handful of presidents. We've had more presidents than the last 4 ... I can get data going back quite a ways, which I'll illustrate here, but using the last 20 years is just ignorant of statistics and the concept of a "sample size" when drawing a conclusion.
Secondly, the minute a president takes office the economy and spending doesn't change -- there's a lag, shortened or stretched by what's happening when the president takes office and outside factors (war, etc.) that can distort the numbers. So when reading the numbers I included below please understand that -- charts are a better way of viewing all of this stuff, relative to each other. For example, thanks to Carter's disastrous policies Reagan took office with 12.5% inflation rampant and skyrocketing unemployment, but those did not change the day he took office -- it took years to fix.
A better analysis of the impact of presidencies, again, is by looking at the trends. But for a basic argument the numbers provided below suffice to illustrate some of the issues.
It's worth mentioning the obvious, that what presidents spent their budgets on is dependent on the economy when they take office, obviously, as well as the state of the GDP at the time and what was happening with the world. While Bush Jr. certainly spent more than most people think was acceptible, for example, 9/11 happened right after he took office and then we proceeded with a land war which has lasted 8+ years in the Middle East (hence the defense spending increase) -- the point being comparing his budget with a peace-time president has inherent flaws. This is true for most of the past 10 presidents, really. As you look through the numbers below, those budgets occured during some of the most monumental occurances in modern history: the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the ramp up and then end to the Cold War, the '73 oil crisis, various inflation rates, tax rates, unemployment rates, and 8 recessions to boot.
Specifically in terms of Reagan, who most point to as the foundation of this modern fiscal conservatism bit, he had a hostile Congress for most of his time in office, and budgets he had approved by Congress were (obviously) the negotiated result of what he submitted. While increasing defense spending (Reagan, like Bush, was convinced defense spending was not at sufficient levels), he wanted non-defense discretionary outlays cut and did so (cut the growth rates, government tends to always get bigger), although not as much as he wanted. You can see that here in the numbers I've listed below and in other slices of the numbers during those years. For example, during the Reagan years education spending was down 25%.
I found an interesting PDF from the Cato Institute comparing Reagan and Bush Jr.'s first 3 years looking for #'s for this today which illustrates this. During Reagan's first 3 years, real outlays for non-defense were slashed almost across the board.
Lastly, the "fiscally conservative" bit. To get why people (including within the Republican party) have built the image of Republicans as fiscal conservatives requires some knowledge and feel for history -- the actual word, "conservative," implies a change from a state where that was not the case ... i.e., "we need to get conservative." In modern times this perceived need came from the reaction of Reagan and the Republicans to Johnson and Carter's disastrous misunderstanding / timing issues with their policies versus the economy. The lines are blurred, however, as following Reagan you have two presidents that did not follow the previously set party lines. Clinton, as one of the "New Democrats," was a moderate, and Bush Jr., as an idiot, increased spending almost across the board while cutting income.
The reason Republicans now seem to be eschewing the "fiscal conservative" title is in response to what Obama has planned, given his budget -- the largest expansion of the Federal government since World War II. Granted part of that is because budgets get bigger over time, usually (more people to govern plus inflation), but the problem is that you cannot balance the budget he's got with the income you have. There was an interesting editorial talking about this in the Wall Street Journal this year -- given tax levels, not even including that due to the current recession and GDP crunch tax rolls will certainly be lower for 2009, you cannot pay for the government we're creating with the current tax rolls. As such most people have by now figured out that more increases are coming down the pipeline in this presidency, and have started the "we need to get more fiscally conservative" chant. Furthering that are the staggering size of the bailouts, and confusion over their need, that Obama has OK'ed (and Bush Jr. as well since part of this bailout business started during his term) and promoted for the banking and auto industries. As indicated below, on a percentage of GDP basis Obama's budget for 2009 is 28% of GDP, 7-8% higher than any president since JFK.
Below are the GDP and Federal increases in spending (total, defense and welfare, in billions, adjusted for inflation) for each president since JFK took office:
John Kennedy-D (61-62)
Increase in GDP: 6%
Increase in spending: 0%
Increase in defense spending: 10%
Increase in welfare spending: 101%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 18.24%
Lyndon Johnson-D (63-68)
Increase in GDP: 22%
Increase in spending: 29%
Increase in defense spending: 22%
Increase in welfare spending: -12%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 19.58%
Richard Nixon-R (69-73)
Increase in GDP: 15%
Increase in spending: 10%
Increase in defense spending: -20%
Increase in welfare spending: 90%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 17.77%
Gerald Ford-R (74-76)
Increase in GDP: 5%
Increase in spending: 19%
Increase in defense spending: 0%
Increase in welfare spending: 80%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 20.37%
Jimmy Carter-D (77-80)
Increase in GDP: 9%
Increase in spending: 14%
Increase in defense spending: 9%
Increase in welfare spending: 9%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 21.18%
Ronald Reagan-R (81-88)
Increase in GDP: 27%
Increase in spending: 23%
Increase in defense spending: 33%
Increase in welfare spending: -4%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 20.86%
George Bush Sr.-R (89-92)
Increase in GDP: 5%
Increase in spending: 10%
Increase in defense spending: -8%
Increase in welfare spending: 50%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 21.8%
Bill Clinton-D (93-00)
Increase in GDP: 30%
Increase in spending: 12%
Increase in defense spending: -8%
Increase in welfare spending: 4%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 18.23%
George Bush Jr.-R (01-08)
Increase in GDP: 18%
Increase in spending: 34%
Increase in defense spending: 67%
Increase in welfare spending: 43%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 20.91%
Barack Obama-D (09 budget)
Spending as a percent of GDP: 28.07%
Subject: Help
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:21:14 -0400
I need a smart retort to this:
But I think it's hilarious that Republicans still get to carry the "fiscally conservative" flag, after Reagan and the Bushes. Everybody likes to claim that they're fiscally conservative. But, in the real world, it is the Dems who have proven to be fiscally conservative. Reagan, the King of Deficit Spending, quadrupled the national debt for the first time in history, and Bush, well, look around you now. There's no money left (it's all in the pockets and accounts of the wealthy), the debt has been massively increased again, and we practically owe China our souls. Yet, Republicans still think they get to claim that they're the "fiscally conservative" party. Curious at best.
The short answer to that question is that it comes from the traditional roles, created by the fundamental ideals of the parties as well as modern history and the party reactions. The Republicans ARE the fiscally conservative party -- that doesn't change if they go off the reservation any more than the Democratic party changes it's left-wing bias when a moderate like Clinton becomes president. What happens, obviously, is a member of either party moves towards or away from the center and the other party reacts with opposing rhetoric. The left's spending spree in the last five months, and budget, are why Republicans are once again going to the "fiscally conservative" card -- if there's a Democrat right now that thinks Obama is a "fiscal conservative" they are simply ignorant of his spending and future spending plans.
The longer answer:
One, you have to look at more than just the last handful of presidents. We've had more presidents than the last 4 ... I can get data going back quite a ways, which I'll illustrate here, but using the last 20 years is just ignorant of statistics and the concept of a "sample size" when drawing a conclusion.
Secondly, the minute a president takes office the economy and spending doesn't change -- there's a lag, shortened or stretched by what's happening when the president takes office and outside factors (war, etc.) that can distort the numbers. So when reading the numbers I included below please understand that -- charts are a better way of viewing all of this stuff, relative to each other. For example, thanks to Carter's disastrous policies Reagan took office with 12.5% inflation rampant and skyrocketing unemployment, but those did not change the day he took office -- it took years to fix.
A better analysis of the impact of presidencies, again, is by looking at the trends. But for a basic argument the numbers provided below suffice to illustrate some of the issues.
It's worth mentioning the obvious, that what presidents spent their budgets on is dependent on the economy when they take office, obviously, as well as the state of the GDP at the time and what was happening with the world. While Bush Jr. certainly spent more than most people think was acceptible, for example, 9/11 happened right after he took office and then we proceeded with a land war which has lasted 8+ years in the Middle East (hence the defense spending increase) -- the point being comparing his budget with a peace-time president has inherent flaws. This is true for most of the past 10 presidents, really. As you look through the numbers below, those budgets occured during some of the most monumental occurances in modern history: the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the ramp up and then end to the Cold War, the '73 oil crisis, various inflation rates, tax rates, unemployment rates, and 8 recessions to boot.
Specifically in terms of Reagan, who most point to as the foundation of this modern fiscal conservatism bit, he had a hostile Congress for most of his time in office, and budgets he had approved by Congress were (obviously) the negotiated result of what he submitted. While increasing defense spending (Reagan, like Bush, was convinced defense spending was not at sufficient levels), he wanted non-defense discretionary outlays cut and did so (cut the growth rates, government tends to always get bigger), although not as much as he wanted. You can see that here in the numbers I've listed below and in other slices of the numbers during those years. For example, during the Reagan years education spending was down 25%.
I found an interesting PDF from the Cato Institute comparing Reagan and Bush Jr.'s first 3 years looking for #'s for this today which illustrates this. During Reagan's first 3 years, real outlays for non-defense were slashed almost across the board.
Lastly, the "fiscally conservative" bit. To get why people (including within the Republican party) have built the image of Republicans as fiscal conservatives requires some knowledge and feel for history -- the actual word, "conservative," implies a change from a state where that was not the case ... i.e., "we need to get conservative." In modern times this perceived need came from the reaction of Reagan and the Republicans to Johnson and Carter's disastrous misunderstanding / timing issues with their policies versus the economy. The lines are blurred, however, as following Reagan you have two presidents that did not follow the previously set party lines. Clinton, as one of the "New Democrats," was a moderate, and Bush Jr., as an idiot, increased spending almost across the board while cutting income.
The reason Republicans now seem to be eschewing the "fiscal conservative" title is in response to what Obama has planned, given his budget -- the largest expansion of the Federal government since World War II. Granted part of that is because budgets get bigger over time, usually (more people to govern plus inflation), but the problem is that you cannot balance the budget he's got with the income you have. There was an interesting editorial talking about this in the Wall Street Journal this year -- given tax levels, not even including that due to the current recession and GDP crunch tax rolls will certainly be lower for 2009, you cannot pay for the government we're creating with the current tax rolls. As such most people have by now figured out that more increases are coming down the pipeline in this presidency, and have started the "we need to get more fiscally conservative" chant. Furthering that are the staggering size of the bailouts, and confusion over their need, that Obama has OK'ed (and Bush Jr. as well since part of this bailout business started during his term) and promoted for the banking and auto industries. As indicated below, on a percentage of GDP basis Obama's budget for 2009 is 28% of GDP, 7-8% higher than any president since JFK.
Below are the GDP and Federal increases in spending (total, defense and welfare, in billions, adjusted for inflation) for each president since JFK took office:
John Kennedy-D (61-62)
Increase in GDP: 6%
Increase in spending: 0%
Increase in defense spending: 10%
Increase in welfare spending: 101%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 18.24%
Lyndon Johnson-D (63-68)
Increase in GDP: 22%
Increase in spending: 29%
Increase in defense spending: 22%
Increase in welfare spending: -12%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 19.58%
Richard Nixon-R (69-73)
Increase in GDP: 15%
Increase in spending: 10%
Increase in defense spending: -20%
Increase in welfare spending: 90%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 17.77%
Gerald Ford-R (74-76)
Increase in GDP: 5%
Increase in spending: 19%
Increase in defense spending: 0%
Increase in welfare spending: 80%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 20.37%
Jimmy Carter-D (77-80)
Increase in GDP: 9%
Increase in spending: 14%
Increase in defense spending: 9%
Increase in welfare spending: 9%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 21.18%
Ronald Reagan-R (81-88)
Increase in GDP: 27%
Increase in spending: 23%
Increase in defense spending: 33%
Increase in welfare spending: -4%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 20.86%
George Bush Sr.-R (89-92)
Increase in GDP: 5%
Increase in spending: 10%
Increase in defense spending: -8%
Increase in welfare spending: 50%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 21.8%
Bill Clinton-D (93-00)
Increase in GDP: 30%
Increase in spending: 12%
Increase in defense spending: -8%
Increase in welfare spending: 4%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 18.23%
George Bush Jr.-R (01-08)
Increase in GDP: 18%
Increase in spending: 34%
Increase in defense spending: 67%
Increase in welfare spending: 43%
Spending at end of term as a percent of GDP: 20.91%
Barack Obama-D (09 budget)
Spending as a percent of GDP: 28.07%