BlueSoxSWJ
Veteran X
So given recent behavior when in power, which party should you vote for in 2012?
Well, if you care about the deficit, you'll want to vote Democrat. They spend almost identically to Republicans, but don't also cut taxes at the same time.
If you care about reducing spending, you're pretty much fucked, because a look at the last time each party controlled both houses of Congress shows that there's almost no difference at all:
Democrats, 2006 to 2010: spending increased $880.8b. Of that, $497.7b was mandatory spending that happened automatically: more people got old, increasing Social Security and Medicare spending; the recession put more people onto food stamps and unemployment insurance, etc. The interest expense fell by $29.7b because of low interest rates, despite shill warnings of bond vigilantes from conservatives since 2008. So that's a net increase attributable to Democrats of $880.8b-$497.7b+$29.7b = $412.8b. Part of that was also the stimulus, which is partially tax cuts and was spread out over several years. Actual spending in 2010 on the stimulus was only about $150b. The stimulus, of course, is not a permanent increase in the size of government, since it is a one-time bill.
So we have now broken down the Democratic "spending spree" into:
Automatic increases + interest: $468.0b
Stimulus: $150.0b
Permanent "expansion of government": $262.8b
But even that is still misleading, because some of the increased spending comes from the wars, which are (hopefully) not permanent. Defense spending rose by $169.1b from 2006 levels.
So the "unprecedented expansion of government" we keep hearing about from conservatives since 2006 actually entails:
Democrats, 2007-2010: $93.7b in new, non-defense, permanent discretionary spending.
(All figures are in nominal dollars taken directly from the CBO website, so not adjusted for inflation, GDP, or anything like that.)
For comparison, the Republicans in 2003-2006, when controlling Congress and the Presidency, increased total spending by $644.2b. Mandatory* +$305.9b, interest +$55.7b; defense +$171.0b, so:
Republicans, 2003-2006: $111.6b in new, non-defense, permanent discretionary spending.
The only real difference relative to the deficit between the parties in the last decade has been that Republicans have insisted on cutting taxes even as they go on their spending spree.
*And note that this method gives the Republicans a free pass for their Medicare expansion, since that falls under mandatory spending.
Well, if you care about the deficit, you'll want to vote Democrat. They spend almost identically to Republicans, but don't also cut taxes at the same time.
If you care about reducing spending, you're pretty much fucked, because a look at the last time each party controlled both houses of Congress shows that there's almost no difference at all:
Democrats, 2006 to 2010: spending increased $880.8b. Of that, $497.7b was mandatory spending that happened automatically: more people got old, increasing Social Security and Medicare spending; the recession put more people onto food stamps and unemployment insurance, etc. The interest expense fell by $29.7b because of low interest rates, despite shill warnings of bond vigilantes from conservatives since 2008. So that's a net increase attributable to Democrats of $880.8b-$497.7b+$29.7b = $412.8b. Part of that was also the stimulus, which is partially tax cuts and was spread out over several years. Actual spending in 2010 on the stimulus was only about $150b. The stimulus, of course, is not a permanent increase in the size of government, since it is a one-time bill.
So we have now broken down the Democratic "spending spree" into:
Automatic increases + interest: $468.0b
Stimulus: $150.0b
Permanent "expansion of government": $262.8b
But even that is still misleading, because some of the increased spending comes from the wars, which are (hopefully) not permanent. Defense spending rose by $169.1b from 2006 levels.
So the "unprecedented expansion of government" we keep hearing about from conservatives since 2006 actually entails:
Democrats, 2007-2010: $93.7b in new, non-defense, permanent discretionary spending.
(All figures are in nominal dollars taken directly from the CBO website, so not adjusted for inflation, GDP, or anything like that.)
For comparison, the Republicans in 2003-2006, when controlling Congress and the Presidency, increased total spending by $644.2b. Mandatory* +$305.9b, interest +$55.7b; defense +$171.0b, so:
Republicans, 2003-2006: $111.6b in new, non-defense, permanent discretionary spending.
The only real difference relative to the deficit between the parties in the last decade has been that Republicans have insisted on cutting taxes even as they go on their spending spree.
*And note that this method gives the Republicans a free pass for their Medicare expansion, since that falls under mandatory spending.
