We rarely get to vote for the perfect candidate for president. Every candidate has some flaw. But, even if that perfect candidate appeared, he or she would still have to answer to the party to which they belong. That candidate’s policies would likely look much like the policies espoused in the past by that party. So, if one decided that total government spending, federal, state and local, were important, then you would want to know the historical performance of that party when it controlled the office in question. In this case, the presidency. Mark Sadowski, a frequent commenter on Mark Thoma’s blog put a chart together for us. It looks at total government spending under each of the last 7 presidents. It adjusts for population growth.
If you are concerned about total government spending, and you do not want it to increase, you should probably want to avoid a GOP president. Those interested can verify numbers at Table 15.2 for spending numbers. For population numbers, use Google.
I have now seen this particular graph in a number of places. As is often the case, it makes a clear point and illustrates it “graphically.” I do find a couple things about it that pique my interest. First, what are the units on the y axis? Dollars, millions of dollars, gallons of milk, or something else? The other thing is that I notice that there has been an increase in spending per person in every single administration. It is not easy to tell absent knowing what the y axis is measured in but the increases appear to always be higher than what the rate of inflation has been.
It would appear that both sides accuse the other side of doing the same thing (spending too much money), the only disagreement is that each says the other is “worse”. What should we do as voters when faced with two camps both of which are acting badly? Might I suggest voting for neither?
1) The y axis is percent.
2) I would suggest that we start with knowing the truth about both sides. For some reason the GOP has managed to cultivate the image of a party that is opposed to spending, when its actions suggest otherwise. I think we need an honest debate between a party that wants to increase services, and will pay for them vs a party that wants to cut taxes AND spending. We dont have that now.
Steve
Okay, percent makes sense. As to your point 2, I could not agree more. The GOP is not at all averse to spending on programs that they like to spend on. How many hundred billions have we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and efforts such as the Patriot Act?
Looking at the spending records at the link you gave, Obama’s spending shot up in 2009 and then actually dropped (per capita) the second year then up again, but at a more moderate pace. The intriguing thing to me is that every president, and the corresponding Congress, increased real spending per capita.
Clinton increased spending at the lowest pace, probably due to defense cuts, but still increased. Part of this is probably due to the cost of education and health care far outpacing inflation, but, on the whole, seems rather absurd. Are we better off today as a country or as individuals than we were 40 years ago? I think not. And, if we keep the current direction, we’ll be worse off.
(I was working on an analysis of the graph, which I suspect is exaggerates the differences.)
Dont forget that this also looks at state and local spending. A lot of the increases for different presidents occur there.
Steve