Government Spending

GOP "Social Darwinism" Quantified! Spend 50 Percent More than Clinton, Pennies Less Than Obama!

|

Over at Investors Business Daily, the essential John Merline puts the Paul Ryan/GOP budget plan—the one being castigated as the second coming of Herod's babykilling hit squad and worse by spendthrift critics—into the awful perspective it deserves.

When expressed in terms of percentage of GDP (far right), Ryan's plan is higher than historical averages when it comes both to outlays and revenues. When stacked up against Bill Clinton's 2000 budget using constant 2005 dollars, Ryan's plan pulls in the same amount of money while spending 50 percent more.

If that's what passes for "thinly veiled social Darwinism"—President Obama's phrase—the English language is as broke as the federal treasury.

To put the dime's worth of difference between the Ryan plan and Obama's for spending over the next decade, take a look at this chart by Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy.

Total projected spending for 10 years under the Ryan/House GOP plan runs to $40 trillion. Under Obama's framework, it comes to $45 trillion. The only real difference between the two is that Ryan zeroes out spending on The Affordable Care Act.

Under the Congressional Budget Office's "alternative scenario," which is based on likely renewal of certain policies, historical spending patterns, and a passing engagement with reality that is largely missing from legislative and executive branch budget plans, we'll spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years.

NEXT: Talking Occupy on Libertarian Radio

Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason.

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. Report abuses.

  1. Alack

    Silly Jacket! You can’t let inconsequential things like “facts” get in the way of The Narrative!

    1. Res Publica Americana

      His Exalted Majesty and Honor, the Most Exceptional and Noble Lord, Grand Leader, and Supreme Autocrat of All the Peoples of the United States, Barack I Hussein Obama, shall not rest until the equalitarian paradise has been established for his loyal peasants. He, of course, and his mnemomic cohort will take the life of the aristocracy only so that they may remain in a consistent position of power to provide for the lowly serfs and guide their puny minds to the right decisions and choices.

  2. Hey, I remember the Clinton years…

    One could step outside and within seconds find an urchin willing to sell you one of his kidneys to cook for your supper for 50cents. They’d cook it for you too.

    The corpses of the elderly lying by their begging cups were a big sanitation problem and did spread disease – particularly to the urchins.

    Why one time I went a week without supping on a 6-year-old’s fresh, undiseased kidney. It was a terrible hardship that was a taste of the blighting effects of Obama’s destruction of the social darwinist hegemony.

    1. Formerly Almanian

      I don’t remember it quite the same way. But I lived in a rural area, so mostly we lived off the carcasses of the dead cows, sheep, horses, dogs, etc abandoned at the farms of sharecroppers who could no longer pay the rent and were brought into the cities to work as slaves (or serve as dinner for) their masters.

      Good times…

      1. R C Dean

        You had animal carcasses to live on?

        Luxury!

    2. Enjoy Every Sandwich

      The Clinton years are what inspired me to be a libertarian. After years of just barely averting starvation by being a monocle squeegie-man, I thought “damn I should join the libertarians and get a monocle of my own!”

      1. There was a lot of bad shit going on during the 90s, and I’m surprised at how few people remember it. CDA–pushed by the administration–Clipper chip, Waco, WoD, bombing people for fun, etc., etc., etc.

        About all Clinton did was move out of the way when a briefly reform-minded GOP took over Congress. And they are overrated, too. The economic boom was about a lot of things that had nothing to do with the government at all.

        1. I left out a big one–the Clinton administration pushed hard for a lot of PATRIOT Act stuff, including all the Know Your Customer crap, making banks into cops.

    3. DesigNate

      *Polishes monocle*

      Indeed.

    4. Pound. Head. On. Desk.

      One could step outside and within seconds find an urchin willing to sell you one of his kidneys to cook for your supper for 50cents. They’d cook it for you too.

      Redolent with garlic and onions… good times, good times.

  3. During the 2008 primary, Clinton was shown to be a racist, so he might as well be the GOP. And as far as I can tell, technically Obama’s opponent in the upcoming race is not historical norms. Thus, the Ryan budget is worse than Hitler.

  4. DA

    Sort of OT: Is anyone else getting the ads with Michelle O’s smug face plastered on them begging for us to donate to the Obama campaign?

    And am I the only one that points and screams “No!” when it pops up?

    1. sarcasmic

      Adblock Plus is a beautiful thing.

    2. R C Dean

      Click it! Every time you do, Michelle has to pay Reason.

      1. This. I’ve clicked on the ad four times in the past two days. While I feel dirty for having those cookies on my computer, at least they insure the ad will keep reoccurring so the Obama campaign will have to pay H&R.

        1. Suddenly, this strange idea that Democrats have that there could be a left-libertarian alliance is explained.

    3. Night Elf Mohawk

      You know, if you don’t want your children to be talked about, maybe don’t put them in your fucking campaign photos.

    4. AlmightyJB

      I’ve been through six computer monitors since those MO ads started popping up.

    5. Brutus

      Ha, I’m getting an ad for an NRA Guns and Gear expo. Clean livin’!

  5. KPres

    Looking at that chart, it looks like Paul Ryan’s social darwinism (medicaid cuts) is met by Obama’s own social darwinism (increased net interest, ie, payments to bankers).

  6. Anonymous Coward

    (Candidate) Obama’s Social Darwinism:

    “If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000, we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.”

    1. Red Rocks Rockin

      Oh boy, there’s a bucketload of good stuff in here:

      “If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000,” Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, “we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.”

      Well, sure, for a time–I see this claim made by a lot of leftists, and its all because they haven’t bothered to do the math on it over the long term. In 20-30 years, we’ll be back in the same place, because the people getting taxed above the $97K cap will now have claim on a greater percentage of obligations than they otherwise would have. The whole point of the cap was the idea that people who made over $100K a year theoretically had the means to save for their own retirement, and thus would not need a SS payout on anything over that amount, which funded current obligations. Reagan and Congress tried a similar trick in the 1980s, and all it did was kick the can down the road because SS is inherently a ponzi scheme that requires exponential growth in inflation and population to keep it solvent.

      Fucking math, how does it work?

      1. Gilbert Martin

        “Well, sure, for a time–I see this claim made by a lot of leftists, and its all because they haven’t bothered to do the math on it over the long term. In 20-30 years, we’ll be back in the same place, because the people getting taxed above the $97K cap will now have claim on a greater percentage of obligations than they otherwise would have”

        I think what they have in mind is removing the cap for purposes of paying taxes but NOT changing the benefit formula to give those people any higher benefits for earnings over $97 K.

        In other words, just flat out steal their money with no pretense that they will get anything back in return for it.

        1. Brutus

          You say that as if it’s something new.

    2. Red Rocks Rockin

      “I do think we need to have a bubble above $97,000, probably up to about $200,000 so we don’t raise taxes on middle-class families,” Edwards said at Thursday’s AARP forum. “But, above the $200,000, these millionaires on Wall Street ought to be paying their Social Security taxes.”

      LOL at Edwards admitting that Social Security is not a “trust fund,” and is a basic tax that pays for current obligations, not saves for future payouts as progressives have been claiming for decades.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.