Thursday, October 23, 2008

Who Are The Biggest Spenders? (Hint: It's not the Democrats. It's not the Republicans.)

I fear for my country when I think of a Democrat president and Democrat congress.
According to Reason magazine, my fears are somewhat justified.
Here's Veronique de Rugy, writing in the November 2008 issue:

"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 Republicans."

If limited government is the goal, history tells us we should root for Democratic presidents and Republican Congresses. And regardless of party, _________'s should be kept far away from the White House."

I'll fill in the blank in a minute.....

She goes on to rank the various combinations of discretionary spending from mediocre to worst:

1) Democratic White House, Republican Congress
2) Republican White House, Democratic Congress
3) Unified Republican or Democratic rule.

De Rugy believes that growth in discretionary spending is the best indicator of financial responsibility, simply because it can be written out of the books each year. (It's only fair to mention that no one has ever decreased the total. Some combinations merely allow it to grow slower than others.... And she doesn't mention which combinations voted to approve the largest increases in non-discretionary spending. That would go back to FDR.)
And what group should be prevented from entering the White House under any circumstances, if reduced spending is your goal?

Not Democrats, and not Republicans.


Yes, Texans.

"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.....While LBJ and GWB increased discretionary spending 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."

So, to everyone living in the other 49 states, the next time you see one of these Lone Star State bumperstickers?

Encourage us. It's for your own good.


fembuttx said...

Dick Cheney looks like he needs to take a big crap or shoot someone....Where has he been lately? Not in the news.

Anonymous said...

That's Don Rumsfeld.

fembuttx said...

I am going to get roasted for that one....Who is that with Johnson?

fembuttx said...

Well, then it looks like Don is going to crap out a great big Dick Cheney....From the looks of it, Cheney may have a rifle up in there with him.

sandersonmom said...

fembuttx...I am extremely disappointed in think I looked up to your words of infinite wisdom...How are we to continue when Whited sees this grave mistake that you have made???

fembuttx said...

The Whited called me...I am in big doodoo...He is taking sooo much glee in my obvious Faux pax. All I can say in my defense, I am a prophet when it comes to crude and distasteful comments....But obviously, I cannot recognize one sour puss politician from another....

The Whited Sepulchre said...


Knowing your affection for all things Obama/McCain and the other BiPartisans, I'm delighted to learn that you thought the somewhat constipated looking chap was Dick Cheney.


Fembuttx is the typical BiPartisan voter.


In answer to your second question....the intense looking guy with Lyndon Johnson is Barack Obama.

Mikeee said...

FFS people that guy next to LBJ is Robert McNamara.
If you're asking yourself "why should I care about some old guy who used to be secretary of defence during the Vietnam war and president of the world bank?", then you OWE it to yourself to watch his brilliant biography/documentary "The Fog of War" (2003). Starring himself! And trust me, this ain't some stuffy ol' documentary. Very interesting and exciting stuff!
I should know, I've seen it three times and I still find new details in it every time. What'd you expect from a guy with "Strange" in his middle name?

Dr Ralph said...

LBJ didn't have a full 2 terms. Just to satisfy my idle curiosity, how does spending compare between GWB and Bill Clinton?

If anyone could come up with those numbers, I'm sure it would be you.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Dr. Ralph,
I'll try to remember to bring Reason magazine with me this Sunday. It breaks out the top spending years of the last 40. That's how LBJ made it.

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

Adjusted for inflation, spending under Clinton went from $1.642 Tn in 1994 (up from $1.615Tn in 93) to $1.821 Tn in 2001 (he approved that budget). That's a 12.75% increase (over 8 years).

Compare that to the fiscally conservative GOP Bush II who approved a $1.929 Trillion in 2002 to $2.263 Tr in 2007. (I guess they're still counting 2008's outlays... can't find that).

That's a 24.27% Increase. Billy was bad... Bushy was worser. And that doesn't include his last year (I don't remember it going down)

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

Leave it to febuttx to get our commentary all moderated.

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

You know, I always say that government hasn't shrunk under any administration? I looked at a list - and spending actually went down under Reagan in 1987 by 1.4% and -.5% under Bush I in 1993.

However, the National Debt went up almost 8% in 87 and 6% in 93... so it kept on growing overall. Spending just shrunk those years.