Fun facts about the fiscal cliff
What was different in many ways during the thick of the Bush years was that spending continued to increase during the good times, too. In 2001, Bush took the reins of a government that was spending 18.2 percent of the economy. By 2008, government spending equaled 20.8 percent of the economy. It then spiked to 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 (a budget year for which some expenses were Obama’s but most were Bush’s). That sort of massive divergence is explainable in light of the fiscal crisis and the Bush and Obama administrations’ responses to it. In my my view, those responses were both hysterical, counterproductive, and at least in regard to the auto bailout, illegal. Whether you agree with me on any of that, you should be worried about whether the boost in spending as a percentage of GDP is a temporary blip or the new normal.
Certainly, it should worry all of us that President Obama’s budget proposal released earlier this year envisioned a decade in which the federal government on average spends 22.5 percent of GDP (Table S-1) and that the budget plan passed by the Republican House would have government spending average 20 percent over the same time period. In terms of paying for such levels of spending, each is well above the historical average of tax receipts since 1950. In fact, the GOP plan even estimates tax revenue over the next 10 years at just 18.3 percent of GDP, ensuring more debt and deficits (Table S-1). And the GOP is supposed to be the party of budget hawks, right?











Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Obama and the leftists, and the rightists who brung him, hate the children and the grandchildren.
May you and yours all suffer, starved, in the dark/cold. YOU deserve no less. He and Michelle will live it up, with caviar and lobsters, a la Louis XV and Madame de Pompadour, fools.
Schadenfreude on December 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM
“some”??? An $800 BILLION Porkulus is “some expenses”? The Porkulus, on its own, represented some 5% of GDP.
This article is a joke.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM
In fact, if you wanted to balance the budget AND pay down your grandchild’s debt – you’d need to limit government spending to no more than 15% of GDP.
And neither the Ayatollahs of the GOP or the Dimmocrits have any plan for that.
HondaV65 on December 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM
The porkulus wasn’t budgeted out for one year guy. It was spread out over several. That’s how Bush spending got thrown in a whole year after he’d been out of office.
This is the way both parties work your money bro.
HondaV65 on December 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM
My mistake. Only $200 billion from the Porkulus was spent in fiscal 2009. That’s just 1.5% of GDP. Of course, the TARP was spent in 2009 and much returned in later years (and it would have been much better if the TARP hadn’t been totally abused and used as a slush fund for the Treasury) so I think it all evens out with respect to fiscal 2009 and assessing who actually spent what. The Porkulus spending, if you recall, became part of the baseline budgeting since we never had another budget after.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 2, 2012 at 3:01 PM
.
davidk on December 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM
In 1998 we had an $82 billion surplus.
In 2012 we had a deficit of over a trillion dollars.
The Federal tax receipts for both years were almost identical.
All numbers adjusted for inflation.
tbrosz on December 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Hey!..all we have to do is invent another dot.com bubble and we can have a slurp-lus again!
Mimzey on December 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM
If only a few people would pay their fair share.
TexasDan on December 2, 2012 at 5:39 PM