When it comes to out-of-control spending, conventional wisdom says the Democrats are most likely to bust open the coffers. That's why many fear an increased Democratic majority in Congress topped by a Democratic president. And we should be afraid. Democrats are indeed big spenders. Second only to the Republicans.
If limited government is the goal, history tells us we should root for Democratic presidents and Republican Congresses. And regardless of party, Texans should be kept far away from the White House.
Federal budgets consist of two main categories: mandatory and discretionary spending. Mandatory outlays consist mostly of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are funded by permanent law rather than appropriations, which means they are outside the annual budgetary review by the president and Congress.
Discretionary spending consists mostly of military spending and nonentitlement domestic programs, including farm subsidies, education, federal law enforcement, and space exploration. The growth in such spending, because it theoretically could be zeroed out each year, is a good measure of fiscal responsibility.
During the last 48 years, the six largest annual percentage increases in real discretionary outlays were split between two presidents, Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush (see Figure 1). Big spending, it would seem, is more a Texas phenomenon than a partisan one. While LBJ and GWB increased discretionary spending by between 6.6 percent and 14.8 percent in their most profligate years, the average annual increase during the last 48 years has been a much more modest 1.7 percent.
An even better indicator is total growth in the federal budget during a president's tenure. Figure 2 shows how many total dollars per term (adjusted for inflation) each modern full-term president added to his predecessor's final budget (or to his own, if he was re-elected). By this measure, George W. Bush outspent everyone. During his first term, he added $345 billion to Clinton's last budget; in his second he has tacked on $287 billion more so far.
Bush's apologists claim he had no choice but to expand military spending to combat terrorism at home and abroad. But he also increased both nondefense spending and mandatory programs enormously. And it's Republicans, not Democrats, who are almost entirely to blame for these expansions, because during the first half of 2001 and all of the 2003-07 period the GOP maintained full control of both the White House and Congress. With Washington unified, the purported party of limited government increased total spending by more than 20 percent, an average of 5 percent a year.
How does that compare with unified government under Democrats? During the one party Carter administration, the average growth rate was slightly lower, at 4.7 percent. Bill Clinton's first two budgets, which were approved by a Democrat-controlled Congress, grew at a comparatively paltry 1.4 percent. Unsurprisingly, government spending increased 35 percent in real terms during LBJ's presidency. Yet Bush spent more: On average he added $79 billion in total outlays each year of his presidency, compared to the $40 billion a year added by LBJ.
Ronald Reagan, that eloquent spokesman for limited government, doesn't look that great either. During his first term, the man who had said "it is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment" added roughly the same total dollar amount to the budget as big spender Jimmy Carter. And while Reagan managed to cut nonmilitary spending by an impressive 10 percent, during that same period he increased total spending by 23 percent.
Many maintain that looking at total spending provides a distorted measure of Reagan's record, arguing that his 41 percent increase in Pentagon spending helped America win the Cold War. That may be true. Yet I can't think of a legitimate reason why we should eliminate defense from the category of government expenditure. After all, it's a department that—like all bureaucracies, and arguably more so—suffers from waste, fraud, abuse, and poor oversight.
Richard Nixon is interesting too. Even though he had no desire to repeal the Great Society, and presided over expansions of government power, he added only $44 billion to the budget during his first term—a 5.3 percent real increase. That's mainly because he slashed military spending by a whopping 30.2 percent.
And Clinton? During his first term, he increased spending by just $68 billion. That's less than Reagan and both Bushes. Does the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 explain his record on spending and the balanced budget of 1998? Not necessarily.
First, spending wasn't out of control during Clinton's first two years. He increased total outlays by less than 3 percent in two years—a remarkably small number compared to the 8 percent increase in 2003-04, the first two years of Bush's one-party rule.
Second, the real causes of the budget surplus were reductions in military spending and higher tax receipts. With the exception of fiscal year 1996, nonmilitary spending under Republican-led Congresses has increased every year during the last half-century. And whatever fiscal discipline the GOP Congress brought to the 1990s, it was short-lived: In Clinton's second term, additional spending doubled to $136 billion.
So no matter who occupies the White House next January, the U.S. government will probably become larger and more expensive. But history suggests that it's likely to grow faster with a Republican president.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|10.31.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Wow, now that is a scary thought isnt it? Wow, can you imagine!
jiff
www.anonymity.cz.tc
|10.31.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Illinois has a unified Democratic government and they haven't done shit (not that I'm complaining).
Douglas Gray|10.31.08 @ 4:49PM|#
It is an axiom of all Republican politicians that military spending makes us all safer. Maybe it's not true.
In order to "Kill dangerous terrorists" we routinely kill scores of innocent women and children, thus turning their surviving young male relatives into terrorists. If the Dems' were to cut way back on military spending, even if there are increases in domestic programs, the total could be lower.
thoreau|10.31.08 @ 4:54PM|#
1) Excellent article.
2) WLC makes a good point. There are shitty state governments with single-party rule and divided government. For instance, hasn't the NY legislature been divided most of the time for decades?
sage|10.31.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Caption Contest!
"I swear to you that we are not after your guns. You just have to trust us on this. Sort of like the bailout."
|10.31.08 @ 5:00PM|#
And regardless of party, Texans should be kept far away from the White House
Amen, sister!
|10.31.08 @ 5:13PM|#
I've been tracking these numbers for years Bottom line is that Dems in the White House are better at "limiting" government notwithstanding the erroneous public perception. But the bad news, neither major party has shown any incentive to limit, let alone shrink government whatsoever.
Nick|10.31.08 @ 5:39PM|#
I notice that the primary criteria is discretionary spending. Frankly, discretionary spending is far less concerning to me than non-discretionary spending, which under Obama seems likely to skyrocket with new entitlements like universal preschool, universal college and universal health insurance.
While learning from historical precedents is important, frankly without context this is rather meaningless. First, Clinton didn't increase spending because his healthcare plan fell flat on its face. Had he succeeded, I doubt the numbers would have been so nice. Second, McCain has always been a budget hawk and I don't see any signs of that really changing beyond the bailout (his biggest mistake in my opinion). He also proposed a spending freeze his first year. More importantly, he'll use the veto pen, unlike Bush.
Also, we are now amidst a huge recession, which leaves question marks on future discretionary spending. Obama does seem to be proposing lots of new discretionary spending to fight the recession, "create jobs", etc. Also, Clinton and Carter were centrists to the right of LBJ. Obama is far to the left of LBJ.
Frankly, while this study is interesting as historical example, I don't know if it actually says anything in context of different candidates and a different political climate.
economist|10.31.08 @ 5:57PM|#
But guys, unity is a good thing! Steve Chapman said so!
I\'m not from Texas either, th|10.31.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Bush is from Connecticut, LBJ was from Texas. Sure Texas is about everything being big, so why not budgets. The tie-in of Bush and LBJ is cute but inaccurate. Each was creepy in his own special way.
Jackfruit & Mangosteens|10.31.08 @ 6:41PM|#
You're comparing tropical fruits. You admit the peace dividend Clinton inherited without acknowledging it. Also remember that Democrats in 1992 were to the right of Republicans today, in general.
United We Fall, Divided We Sta|10.31.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Won't someone play Burt Bacharach at the inaugural?
Silver Lining|10.31.08 @ 6:55PM|#
2004: Republican Congress, Republican Executive, Republican Judiciary
2008: Democrat Congress, Democrat Executive, Democrat Judiciary (on its way)
Things can change pretty quickly. Dontcha think?
Meaning: silver prices likely to fall! Invest in Osmium!
Daniel Reeves|10.31.08 @ 7:06PM|#
I agree that a Democratic president and a Republican congress is best; the Republicans are war hawks and whimsical spenders so putting them in executive power is bad... but we still needs some balance so things don't get too messed up.
My only concern is that Obama is really liberal, and America still doesn't have national health care, and there's a huge-ass economic downturn right now. So unless Republicans can win back Congress in two years (yeah right), we're fucked no matter what. Dammit!
|10.31.08 @ 7:06PM|#
What's funny is the Democratic shills who were praising divided government to the skies in 2006 and warning against it now. Why not just be honest?
MAX HATS|10.31.08 @ 7:08PM|#
what
yingge|10.31.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Our wow power leveling professinal workers will level your character fast,wow power leveling when you are at work or sleeping,pleae review our website: wow-power-leveling.org....
What does wow-power-leveling.org do?After you choose one of our wow power leveling services, we will level your character 24 hours a day with nonstop power leveling,Once payment is confirmed, your order will be submitted for processing,reply to this