Nanny State Spending Skyrockets Under Obama

Nanny State Liberation Front ^ | 06/29/2010 | NSLF

[HandsOffMyFreedom]

The mathematical wizards at the blog 'Political Calculations' have produced some visual aids to vividly depict what they call, "The Cost of Feeding the Nanny State." It's worth a glance if you have yet to enjoy President Obama's sweet and intoxicating Kool-Aid, and it might just relieve symptoms of 'Blamebushisitis."

In May 2010, George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis jointly issued a report on the growth of government spending allocated in the annual budget of the United States' federal government for the purpose of regulating social and economic activity in the nation. Written by Susan Dudley and Melinda Warren, the report primarily focuses its analysis on the U.S. budgets for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. However, we were really taken with the stylized graph presented on the report's cover page ...

What we find is that the cost of social and economic regulation in the United States, has been and is growing at an exponential rate ...

But that's not accurate enough for us! We applied the data regression tools available at ZunZun to create the formula we presented in the chart above, so we can better project what the cost of social and economic regulation in the U.S. will be in the future, not to mention quickly estimating where it's been since 1960!

Going by our math, by the end of President Obama's first term in office in 2013, we could reasonably expect the cost of social and economic regulation to be on the order of 60 billion dollars. That's up from the $43.3 billion that regulation cost U.S. taxpayers in 2008.

And that's not even incorporating ...

Read more

[BobP]

WAKE UP AMERICA

---

---

[wiggen]

Chicken and the egg argument. I can’t stand the guy but in a prolonged period of high unemployment state outlays will by necessity go much higher.

[tom h]

"Chicken and the egg argument. I can’t stand the guy but in a prolonged period of high unemployment state outlays will by necessity go much higher."

Don't disagree with your general sentiment but with the Democrats, once a program is started it never stops.

To wit, lots of the extra stimulus funding for projects and biotech will never be one-time matters. Their lobbyists will be all over the Hill talking about the great results from that $20 billion and begging for $21 the following year. Ditto for federal aid to public schools, etc., etc.

The last time the nation spent this much money was in World War II. Do you remember how Roosevelt financed the war? Sure, there were some higher taxes but the primary way was via the sale of war bonds. What's the difference between taxes and war bonds, you ask? Taxes are involuntary and, generally, permanent, while war bonds were voluntary and temporary. People that pay 50% tax on their income hate it. People that bought war bonds felt like patriots.

No, Obama's spending is unprecedented and the future expenditures for ObamaCare will make expenditures dizzyingly high.

Another example -- the US Constitution needed to be amended to allow an income tax. "Just a couple of percent on the rich" was the rationale from the liberals at the time. Within 10 years the highest tax rates were 90%!

Never, never trust a Democrat/progressive/liberal/leftist/socialist. Never, never, give a politician another way to raise money.