Changes in Federal Debt, Annually, By President

To follow up the previous post, here's a nice list that I've reduced from a wikipedia table with figures about the rates of increased federal debt. But ha! There is one exception! The federal debt went down one (ONE!) time since 1993. This time, I'll add the growth in GDP right next to the growth of the debt, and put an asterisk * after the years spending increase percentages outstrip growth of GDP.

1994 Clinton 4.6% GDP: 3.8%
1995 Clinton 3.4% GDP: 2.7%
1996 Clinton 3.0% GDP: 2.7%
1997 Clinton 1.7% GDP: 4.3%
1998 Clinton 1.0% GDP: 4.4%
1999 Clinton 0.8% GDP: 4.2%
2000 Clinton -2.1% GDP: 3.7%
2001 Clinton 0.2% GDP: 1.2% *
2002 Bush 5.5% GDP: 1.3% *
2003 Bush 6.2% GDP: 1.4% *
2004 Bush 5.7% GDP: 3.4%
2005 Bush 3.7% GDP: 2.6% *
2006 Bush 3.4% GDP: 2.9% *
2007 Bush 3.6% GDP: 2.8%
2008 Bush 5.0% GDP: 0% *
2009 Bush 5.5% GDP: 2.6% *
2010 Obama 12.5% GDP: -2.0% *

Can't say that the magic formula is Democratic President, Republican Congress anymore!

After isolating, it's interesting to go back and lay these two side by side, as the original table does. What can be observed?

1. Government consistently grows in cost.
2. The debt consistently grows.
3. Only in one of the Clinton years, his last, did the spending increases outstrip growth of GDP. In 6 of the 8 Bush years it did. Also, in Obama's first year. Were the smart years the Clinton years, or the Bush years? Looks like we can learn something from this.

I see a lot of criticism tying the lack of revenues to the Bush tax cuts. Ok, but is the lack of GDP growth no factor? After all, tax revenues are relative to the growth of GDP. If a person enjoys a tax cut to 20% and makes $100,000/year, he pays $20,000, while the person suffering a higher tax rate of 25% while making $50,000/year pays $12,500.

Maybe we should worry far less about tax rates, and worry a whole lot more about seeing to it that people can make more income. Taxing millionaires might yield satisfying rhetoric, but will cause your income to rise? Will it put 20 people into jobs? I mean jobs that expand GDP by creating wealth.

If we're really interested first and foremost about raising revenues, shouldn't we be trying to do everything we can to get fuller employment, and for people to earn more? We have 2.8 million millionaires. Meanwhile, we have 14.1 million unemployed. Nevermind the underemployed, like me. I'd rather see us get the unemployed into jobs, and the underemployed more work.

So, if the smart days were the Clinton years, we should observe that there is no GDP growth, so we should accordingly spend less. I mean, if that was smart then.

Changes in Federal Spending, Annually, By President

I've been watching the partisans battle it out over the debt ceiling, and marveling at the way numbers are thrown around without particular regard for things like accuracy. I've had so many different articles and posts come up that caused immediate cognitive dissonance. When I get that sensation, I go for references.

So, here's a nice list that I've reduced from a wikipedia table with figures about the rates of increased spending. Yes, only increases. Since 1994, federal spending has only increased. The last time it actually decreased was 1993, under George HW Bush.

1994 Clinton 1.7%
1995 Clinton 1.2%
1996 Clinton 0.7%
1997 Clinton 0.7%
1998 Clinton 2.2%
1999 Clinton 1.9%
2000 Clinton 2.5%
2001 Clinton 1.8%
2002 Bush 6.0%
2003 Bush 4.6%
2004 Bush 3.2%
2005 Bush 4.0%
2006 Bush 3.9%
2007 Bush 0.6%
2008 Bush 4.6%
2009 Bush 3.6%
2010 Obama 1.4%

Seems like the magic formula is Democratic President, Republican Congress- not that any of them reduced the size of government in this time. They all grew it. But nothing grew it like Republican President, Republican Congress.

So, the rhetoric about the size of government not growing is bullshit. Likewise, the rhetoric about spending not growing is bullshit. And the rhetoric about Republicans being the party of smaller government is the biggest steaming pile of the purest, pungent, unmitigated bullshit ever foisted upon a gullible public.

Yesterday Was Tax Freedom Day!

I was surprised to learn that April 13 was 2009's Tax Freedom Day.

What is that? It's the day the average American is now working for himself. Up to this point, from January 1 through April 13, every cent you earned was committed to paying taxes.

The good news is, this Tax Freedom Day comes 8 days earlier than last year's Day. The bad news?

(1) the recession has reduced tax collections even faster than it has reduced income, and
(2) the stimulus package includes large temporary tax cuts for 2009 and 2010. Nevertheless, Americans will pay more in taxes than they will spend on food, clothing and housing combined.

Does anybody think it just that we spend more on taxes than food, clothing and housing combined? Please chime in if you do.

Again, this surprised me. The conventional wisdom is that when Democrats take office, taxes go up, right?

Oh, right. Smoke & mirrors. A shell game. Deficit spending. That which made Ronald Reagan a criminal. That which the glorious Clinton Administration didn't engage in. That which Democrats so recently campaigned against. Any cognitive dissonance, Democrats? Or, is all justified when the a guy wearing blue does it?

Today's Government Spending, Graphically Explained

If reckless spending is what got us into this mess, is more spending really the answer?



As Democrats were pointing out during campaign season, one of the great hallmarks of the glorious Clinton Adminstration was the SURPLUS left behind. Anyone think there's a snowball's chance in hell that the Obama Administration will measure up to Clinton's record? Bush's?

Great Oratory

I watched the Obama speech last night, and on the whole found it pretty useless, even though it was excellent oratory. He's easily the best speech giving President in my lifetime, better than Reagan or Clinton even. Impressions:

Obama is a quick study. After months of campaigning on Hope(tm) and then ditching Hope (tm) for Fear Itself in his first press conference, Obama rediscovered Hope(tm). It was a campaign speech, loaded with platitudes and warm fuzzies.

Like any campaign speech by any politician, it promised all kinds of goodies, all while cutting taxes and the budget. Well! The Obama Administration, with the help of his rubber stamp Congress, has already doubled the deficit 'he inherited' in just one short month with the 'stimulus'. How is it going to be possible to spend even a penny more and yet manage to cut anything? This I want to see.

Obama talked about 'not governing from anger', and yet couldn't resist taking jabs at the CEO who spent bailout money on drapes, and the CEO who bought a corporate jet. That's one of the sources of popular anger, as if he didn't know.

The Republican response was hilarious, except that The Office wasn't going to be on for another half hour. It may not have seemed like an actual response, because it didn't address the speech terribly well and sounded like one man's campaign and story time. But, that's what made it an actual response, because Obama's speech didn't address the country's problems terribly well and sounded like one man's campaign and story time.

If anyone, Obama of the Congress, would like to address the real problems, here is where to go to work:

Cut spending
Cut spending
Treat the banks like you treat the automakers
Cut spending
Stop printing money without value to back it
Cut spending
Cut spending
Get out of Iraq already
Cut spending

Pretty simple, but then, our problems are actually pretty simple: We borrow and spend too much.

Great Barr Poll Numbers

(Big Sky, MT)- Libertarian Bob Barr is now consistently polling 6-7% when included in presidential polls among likely voters. I can't for the life of me recall Libertarian candidates being regularly included, let alone polling as highly as this, with this being the fourth presidential election cycle I've been supporting watching for such things. From the Barr Campaign:

In the first comprehensive general election poll (a sample of over 46,000 likely voters), Bob Barr is now at six percent nationally!

David (Beiler) was there in 1992 when Ross Perot, then polling at seven percent nationally, was included in the debates with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

Four percentage points are all that we need to get into the Google/YouTube presidential debate that is scheduled for September 18th.

According to the debate rules we need ten percent in at least three polls before the debate starts in New Orleans.

These polling numbers are being achieved without benefit of huge TV ad spending, or constant media coverage. I have great hope that the media will increase with these numbers. From there, the campaign needs to ramp up the fundraising and get some ads on TV to boost Barr's name recognition. 

Inclusion in the debates would be phenomenal. I recall how Perot's numbers soared after inclusion in the debates. 

Barr Has Proven His Libertarian Chops

I hope at some point the left-libertarians become comfortable with Bob Barr such that he can stop going out of his way to show his “Libertarian Chops” like this and get to hammering on the biggest issues of the day more exclusively: Iraq/foreign policy; the dollar/taxes/spending/borrowing; energy policy.

There is a great opportunity for Barr to reach the American people very broadly, and it is important that he not self-marginalize by reaching so strenuously within the Libertarian Party. The nomination is won, and the time for this kind of campaigning is over. It ended in Denver, a few weeks ago.

So, as Bill Clinton got "It's the Economy, Stupid" down pat, let's see Barr get these down:

1. Iraq/foreign policy

2. The dollar/taxes/spending/borrowing

3. Energy policy

Barr's positions on the three most important issues of the day are winners. There's no point in him bogging down with correctness on issues of lesser weight.