Politics, at least in the United States, seems to be an industry that’s based on emotional, irrational thinking. Often, the method of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is employed to confuse those voters who think with their “stomachs” rather than their heads. Most Americans seem to have no problem with the trillions of dollars spent on attacking Iraq, but they are outraged by paying an extra dollar or two per gallon of gasoline. We live in a nation where hysteria over a manufactured threat – terrorism – has given government free reign to curtail liberties. We ask for no evidence related to the effectiveness of unbridled spending on war and “Homeland Security”.
Economics will be an important part of our next Presidential election. One of the main arguments against the Democratic party seems to be that it will raise taxes and increase spending. But is there any statistical information to backup that claim? R.W. Bradford argues just the opposite in The Politics of Presidential Spending. While the article is several years old, the information is still quite valid (and if you factor in Bush’s War and his administration’s bungling of just about all aspects of American government, it would help support the results). Here are some statistics and excerpts:
Most people believe that Democrats are big spenders and that Republicans are tight-fisted. The evidence leads to a very different conclusion.
…
Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
…
- In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
- During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
- When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
- The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
- During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.
The results are quite clear – not only do Republican presidents spend far more money, but they often spend it on such “necessities” as creating wars. Sadly, the American people are extremely unlikely to let the use of any for of facts, figures, or statistics inform their decisions. So, it looks like the Republican Party can continue with it’s campaign of FUD, and people will listen.
What's the difference between a conservative and a republican? - Page 11 - Political Forum said,
June 30, 2008 at 1:05 am
[...] more, but many conservatives still don’t like how much the Republicans do. That’s a myth – or a lie (LINK). Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a [...]
A neutral said,
October 1, 2008 at 3:42 pm
WHOA!!!!!! We’re really messed up. I mean REPUBLICANS spending more money???? Your statistics are really wrong,republicans are soooooo awesome. Democrats are,too. George Washington said to stay away from political parties,not create them!!! WE ARE ONE COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD STAY TOGETHER,NOT BE DIVIDED INTO SECTIONS ,SUCH AS POLITICAL PARTIES!!!!!!!!
A neutral said,
October 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm
BE A NEUTRAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
josh said,
October 14, 2008 at 8:49 am
That was nice. Someone doing the math behind something I’ve been trying to point out for years… Conservative prez’s ain’t conservative. I think the state of perpetual war we’ve been in since WWII helps justify this, administration after administration, and not only props up our corporations that rely heavily on government contracts for war toys (locally- Boeing), but has actually led to Americans expecting warfare, feeding their children to whichever fray the Republican party has latched onto, whichever conflict has the best “cost-benefit” analysis. Oil made Iraq worthwhile, but our coalition of the willing grew so thick with allied assistance, we never could heist the Texas Tea the way Dick Cheney had hoped to. Yet. When we leave, in 2010, it’ll be interesting to see what kind of oil coupons the installed government of Iraq hands over – then more interesting to see how that translates to relief-at-the-pump. Somehow, I don’t think it’ll justify the loss of life, and I’m sure it won’t eclipse the financial cost, currently in the mail.
Thanks for sharin’.
charles ivy said,
October 30, 2008 at 9:33 am
It is clear the author of this post does not understand who controls spending in the US, it is not the President who controls spending making this entire article false.
Barry said,
November 8, 2008 at 11:15 am
Using that logic the President is powerless to do anything short of acting in a national emergency. In practice the President submits a budget and if the legislature is controlled by the same party it gets passed through without much scrutiny. Especially in the Republican party where loyalty is valued above reason. If the opposing party has a majority in the House or Senate, it is still an uphill battle to make significant changes to the Presidents budget. The President has Veto power and that is a powerful weapon against those who want to make significant changes. There is a time frame in which the budget must be passed and if it does not get passed there are consequences. The consequences for those who try to rectify a Republican budget? If you are a Republican chances are it is your last term. If you are a Democrat you are labled an obstructionist, partisan, and someone who cannot work across party lines. That has proven to be a powerful negative for Democrats running for re-election anywhere but the most Democratic districts.
IcallBS said,
February 9, 2009 at 9:39 am
I love the sources you cite. How about you take a look at real spending statistics. Bush Jr didn’t do much to help Republicans, but how can you cut spending whenever you fight a war, and experience 2 of the largest natural disasters our country have seen. There are so many external factors that are never taken into account. Clinton inherited the internet boom whenever our country’s economy was the best it has ever been. So of course they are going to have a surplus.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.20675/pub_detail.asp
steve whitaker said,
March 25, 2009 at 7:30 pm
facts are the facts. republicans spend more. they just dont want you to believe it.
What? said,
April 10, 2009 at 10:05 am
I’m with you IcallBS. What these “statistics” also leave out is the fact that the numbers reported are increase deficit, not increases in GDP or governmental revenues (i.e. taxes). When you tax more, you can spend more and still claim a “surplus”. I find it fascinating that so many people, on both sides have absolutely no idea what government is doing and only listen to the information passed around in written text and heard on the news (media), without doing the ACTUAL research on their own. PATHETIC. If anyone reading this has even a hint of any analytical/logical/critical thinking ablility you will see that the so called facts and statistics will actually represent the fact that congress is the only branch of government that has a significant impact on spending. Veto power has some clout but can only pass or deny spending bills approved by congress. If a Rep pres wants more spending for a war, congress can stop him. If that congress is Democratic, then nobody should point a finger at anyone else. In fact, Atypical Guy, your own numbers indicate that more spending occurs when Dems control both the executive and legislative branches.
With that said, I’m with A neutral. Our government is running rampant and, in fact, running this country right in the direction that our founding fathers were trying to prevent. SOME (VERY few) corporations may have some greedy people at the top, but our government is far more corrupt and greedy and we have got to stop relying on them to fix our country’s issues. The only way to truly be prosperous is to cut spending AND taxes and neither party does that.
Our freedoms are slowly diminishing and sadly, most people don’t even recognize that. In fact, blogs like this are actually blindly encouraging it by stating partisan falsehoods as fact and spinning the truth. The people of this country have got to come to the realization that they are in control of their own lives, not the government, or anyone else. Until that happens, I’m afraid we will continue heading down the paths of socialism regardless of which party is in power.
Jake said,
April 20, 2009 at 3:37 pm
okay “What?” I agree with you, but what then is the best course of action, how do we exercise our control?
Jon said,
May 10, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Ok, that may be true, but let’s now factor in the Obama administrations spending on bailing out the nation and add those into the stats, and I’d have to say that Obama alone evens it out or even puts democrats on top of spending now.
Jim a-democrat said,
June 13, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Obama has proven to single handed break the country in spending for the next few generations……People living today will never see a surplus government budget. Thanks to the socialist thinking of Obama….but he talks good!
bob said,
June 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Ok first thing to note:
Numbers are numbers it’s how you use them.
Every time a repbulican has been president (other than once) in the last 40 plus years there has been a democrat majority.
Presidents do NOT control spending. Therefore the only thing that matters is who is in control of the congress. Take note that 1995-2006. Republicans had the majority. Take note that due to the fact that democrats had the last 40+ years before then there isn’t much to compare. In the small amount of time of comparison, they did VERY well. 2 years after the switch back to democrat everything collapsed and now Obama is making Bush’s deficit look like pocket change. Deficits are run annually by the way. They do not stack years. One year does not affect the other, nor does the amount of income brought in. It’s how much we spend vs how much we earn. It can always be Zero.
Republicans were not able to re-regulate the banks (They aren’t the party of no, that would be the democrats) because the democrats blocked it in a party line vote. Republicans did not have enough of a majority to pass any and all laws. If you look up the regulations on banks in 2005 you will find Mc Cain tried to advert the current crises.
So yes, republicans are far superior on economic issues and your analysis is completely far fetched and poor.
Eric said,
July 9, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Ok I get your facts here and I think you are missing a clear point. As I understand it Congress, not the president, creates and approves the budget. Congress is responsible for approving spending by the president. Now this being said if you look at your statistics during Clinton’s presidency the Congress was controlled by Republicans and there was less spending. As you point out, “During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%.” Again as you point out this is, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP.” In your own article you provide the facts that disprove your claim. Now I agree that Republicans are not any better than Democrats when it comes to growing our government, but Democrats never look at themselves and paint a realistic picture. Democrats instead make every effort to defame and destroy the Republican party. Why are they so scared of the Republican party? Look at the current administration they are in total control and can do whatever they want, yet they still attack and defame Republicans every chance they get. Why is this?
Now I think the problem is that politicians are politicians. They lie to get elected, and they do not represent America, they represent their own interests. Currently in America we have moved from Democrats and Republicans to Republicrats. Both parties are interested in reducing freedom while increasing governmental power. Neither party is innocent when it comes to wasting money, the Democrats have almost tripled the national debt in just six months.
We can’t get out of debt by spending money, we need to stop foreign aid, stop involvement with the UN, WTO, and IMF, return to the gold standard, and dissolve the Federal Reserve. If Democrats and Republicans could just work together civilly and actually debate legislation it would be better for all of us. Instead the tactic used today is to show up with a 1000 page plus piece of legislation and demand that it be passed today without actually reading it. Now that is scary!!!!! So the fear continues.
Independent said,
August 19, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Republicans: 2 trillion for Iraq + 1 trillion to bail out banks + 5,000 dead soldiers = recession, and average joe didn’t get ANYTHING to show for it.
Democrats: 1 trillion for healthcare (WWJD? Universal Healthcare that’s what) + 1 trillion stimulus (50% increase in stockmarket in 5 months despite republican claims it didn’t work)
The way I see it Obama still has another trillion to invest in America before he gets even close to what Bush wasted. We actually will have something to show for it besides dead soldiers and civilians.
Oh, in case you guys forgot…Bush Sr. created the taliban in 1993 with the CIA to push out the russians. It’s true…look it up.
bob said,
August 31, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Actually, look it up at I believe costofwar.com, you’re a little mislead on Iraq.
Iraq: 650billion in about NINE years working out to a little about 75 billion a year. We can’t count the Afghan war, because you and I both know that democrats as a whole agree with it as well as Obama. Obama: 1 trillion in one on health care in ONE year. A defecit is rated one year, to one year. You just combined 9 years into one. If we combine the cost of healthcare in that same time frame, the estimates are actually 7-9 trillion depending on which reference frame you take. Iraq had little to do with our problems. Also, I work in insurance. AIG’s tank was the very reason every system tanked, and it was a democrat problem. Insurance companies are all banks, which decide to use their capital to provide insurance for companies. Insurance is a necessity which helps stability. Their loss ratios are all high enough (meaning they pay enough claims to end up at a loss ratio of over 1) that they have to invest in order to pay claims and remain profitable. Now then, a few years back, (Clinton and Carter) both forced low income loans for housing. The amount of loans held by Fannie Mae Freddie mac were over 2 TRILLION dollars. Clinton fined companies that didn’t give the loans. Now what’s really great is Clinton said how they didn’t need to worry, they could be profitable. He pretty much guaranteed the loans. In 2007 we had the best year for housing almost ever. Literally. So, the insurance companies almost UNANIMOUSLY invested in the GOVERNMENT APPROVED loan system. What do you have to lose? The government told you it was great! So we need more regulation right? AIG collapsed from their investments on housing, many other insurance companies nearly collapsed. Now then, remember what I said? Insurance companies pretty much ARE banks. What happens when every insurance company nearly collapses, every bank nearly collapses that gave out home loans, and no one has anything to spread around? The economy collapses. That was not Bush’s fault. Now you honestly want the government to decide what’s ok for business? HA and HA. They caused this crises. Only a few companies would have collapsed in the real world. NO business wants to collapse. They will work hard to ensure that. If they don’t collapse, they pay AVERAGE JOE american. If they collapse they don’t. ALL companies would collapse if the goverment decided what a company could or could not do and was wrong. Surely you must know that politicians OFTEN are wrong republican or democrat.
Also: I’ve had an Uncle get hit by a car, have a heart attack twice, and an Aunt who would have otherwise gone blind who was broke. They were never denied healthcare. Your WWJD is typical of democrats too. I honestly cannot think of one disaster my family had, or any people I know, no matter how crazy it was, that wasn’t taken care of, because there is a policy with hospitals: If you need immediate treatment, they are required to give it. There are out of control costs, there are people that are uninsured, yeah yeah we know that. The question is how does it work as a whole? Most of that doesn’t invovle the goverment. And WWJD? Come on, that’s the most childish thing I’ve ever heard. We have a good health care system. Does it have issues? Yes. Are we literally kicking people out on the street because we don’t have universal healthcare? No. In fact we’d kick more people out on the streets with universal healthcare. As Obama wants it, every other country that has done similar has a higher mortality rate from serious illness 4 to 1. It doesn’t work. So, if jesus were not all powerful, he’d go with the best route, not a B.S. one proven not to work. Our health care system is the best in the world. Technically not everyone is covered in the system, but they DO still get care. The numbers that are important is not how many people are not covered by the system, it’s how many people die from it and or don’t receive treatment? How many people don’t get care? The democrats don’t have an answer to that one other than “It could happen”. “It could happen” is good enough for you? Wake up. Pull out a number for me on how many people die. I dare you. Not ONE democrat has ever done it.
You need to get your facts straight. You’re stating them mix and match with polka dots and jig jags in a way that works for your “republicans hate the average joe” typical statement which is wrong. You just want a common enemy.
Now let’s go Bush: Bailout plan approved by a democrat run congress, again proving the spending is not working out in your favor. He pretty much allowed congress to do whatever they wanted. That was Bush’s problem. You think the problem was forcefulness…He needed to pull the democrat majority out of control nature in by the reigns. That was why he sucked.