CATO - Bush biggest spender in recent U.S. History

[Lawrence of Arabia]

[Az]

damn, VJ.

[Whoha]

It went down there because the Republicans held the line on spending but Clinton managed to raise taxes.

[Az]

the Republicans held the line on spending

[DanS]

I would like to point out that that chart only shows current expenditure - i.e. spending on consumption and transfer payments - it excludes government investment which i'm sure has to be paid for as well.

No, it doesn't. This one uses total expenditures and revenues.

[DanS]

Now then DanS, when you look at the "Clinton" part of that chart, do you see any trend regarding the size of the federal deficit?

While factually correct, your analysis is misleading. In the US, the previous president's tax and spending policies (inasmuch as they influence the congress's tax and spending policies) are followed through at least the first 9 months of the new president's term. So the spending started heading down at the tail end of Bush 41's policies and up at the tail end of Clinton's policies (all in relation to the economy).

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
No, it doesn't. This one uses total expenditures and revenues.

So what do you do about the items 'Capital transfer payments' and 'Net purchases of nonproduced assets' (Lines 36 and 37 on table 3.1)

There is no data for them before 1960 - so where did your data for 1929-59 come from then?

Originally posted by DanS
While factually correct, your analysis is misleading. In the US, the previous president's tax and spending policies (inasmuch as they influence the congress's tax and spending policies) are followed through at least the first 9 months of the new president's term. So the spending started heading down at the tail end of Bush 41's policies and up at the tail end of Clinton's policies (all in relation to the economy).

So are you saying that Bush Snr 'saw the light' of fiscal responsibility only during the last few months of his presidency?
That compares pretty badly with Clinton then doesn't it - he appears to have pursued it up until the end of his presidency (when, remember, there were large surpluses).

You also pooh-pooh Clinton's fiscal repsonsibility by saying about the US's national debt that:

Originally posted by DanS
It was going up during Clinton too, except his last couple of years.

Need I remind you that the only years in which the US's net debt has decreased (in the period from 1960-2004 for which comparable data exists) were 2000, 1999, 1998 and 1969 - and the smallest surplus of the clinton years (0.4% of GDP in 1998) was double the only non-clinton surplus of 1969 (0.2%).


And you think i'm being misleading?

It's a real shame to see you fall from grace like this DanS, I used to have some respect for your analysis and thought you relatively impartial compared to most posters on 'poly.

How the mighty have fallen

[Imran Siddiqui]

So are you saying that Bush Snr 'saw the light' of fiscal responsibility only during the last few months of his presidency?

Remember he raised taxes a good amount during his Presidency which eventually got him kicked out. Bush Sr. was nothing like his son.

[el freako]

Yes I remember - and he was to be commended for it.

However DanS seems to be claiming that giving at least some credit to Clinton for the the turnaround in the US's net debt which happened from 1993 (and which carried on for 8 years remember) and for achieving 3 out of 4 of the annual surpluses in the last 44 years is somehow 'misleading'

[DanS]

Originally posted by el freako


So what do you do about the items 'Capital transfer payments' and 'Net purchases of nonproduced assets' (Lines 36 and 37 on table 3.1)

There is no data for them before 1960 - so where did your data for 1929-59 come from then?

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/2005/04/us_government_s.html

So are you saying that Bush Snr 'saw the light' of fiscal responsibility only during the last few months of his presidency?

Refer to Imran's answer. But also consider that Bush Sr was fighting poor economics, which ultimately is of paramount importance in such an analysis, since the president doesn't have much control over the divisor.

That compares pretty badly with Clinton then doesn't it - he appears to have pursued it up until the end of his presidency (when, remember, there were large surpluses).

I'm not dissing Clinton, but note that he didn't suffer from a recession in any portion of his presidency and didn't have any expensive crises that he had to take care of.

You also pooh-pooh Clinton's fiscal repsonsibility by saying about the US's national debt that:

I'm not pooh-poohing Clinton. The first thing I have wrong with Clinton's presidency with regard to economics is that he let the surpluses grow too much. He would have left his successor in a much better position by cutting taxes in '97 and '98. The government was taking too much of production.

The second was that FY '01 spending was a complete boondoggle, the fault for which Clinton and the GOP congress share. All fiscal sanity was killed that year, and Bush didn't have anything to do with that.

But overall, I thought he did a good job by keeping the status quo on track.

And you think i'm being misleading?

It's a real shame to see you fall from grace like this DanS, I used to have some respect for your analysis and thought you relatively impartial compared to most posters on 'poly.

How the mighty have fallen

Where did I say that you were misleading? Are you posting under the username VJ?

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/2005/04/us_government_s.html

Hmm, looking at the excel file related to that (you did look at it before posting the graph right?) there are two errors:

First they ignore the point I made about lines 36 and 37 on BEA table 3.1 as there is no data they assume the numbers are zero before 1960 - not very accrurate as I hope you'd agree.

Secondly they get confused by line 38 'Consumption of Fixed Capital' - basically depreciation of govenment assets - as this is deducted from the budget deficit due the way that deficit is calculated they also deduct it from government spending.

It is correct to deduct it from the deficit as that particular measure (net lending) is meant to show the net change in the governments net assets - how ever it is not appropriate to deduct it from spending, or would you not count repairs to a public building (for example) as government spending?

[DanS]

That's my post, dude.

First they ignore the point I made about lines 36 and 37 on BEA table 3.1 as there is no data they assume the numbers are zero before 1960 - not very accrurate as I hope you'd agree.

Only an assumption, which I duly noted. I think it's reasonably accurate for my purposes in that post and our discussions here. Certainly, those two line items are de minimis in the known years.

Secondly they get confused by line 38 'Consumption of Fixed Capital' - basically depreciation of govenment assets - as this is deducted from the budget deficit due the way that deficit is calculated they also deduct it from government spending.

I'll look in to that, but at first blush I think that's the way to do it. It's just a recreation of the mathematical method from 1960 onward for total expenditures from current expenditures.

In any event, anything pre-1960 doesn't impact our argument here, so suck it.

[Fake Boris]

Washington delenda est.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
I'll look in to that, but at first blush I think that's the way to do it.

Surely you're not honestly saying that when the government conducts maintainence on it's assets that it shouldn't be counted as spending?

[DanS]

If I'm understanding the concept correctly, consumption of fixed capital is depreciation of a government asset which has been invested in the past. You can only account for the spending once -- either when invested or when depreciated. Total expenditures accounts for it when spent. Current expenditures + consumption of fixed capital accounts for it when depreciated.

The total receipts and expenditures are basically your cash accounts, adding in all of the things you spent under the table like draws from the federal government for development loans and the like.