Replies

Didn't someone show that Ronald Reagan spent more money as a percentage of GDP than GW Bush

GWB's non-defense discretionary spending is a greater percentage of GDP than Reagan's was, in Reagan's last four budgets.
Bear in mind, President Reagan had a more expensive Cold War to fight, and we aren't really talking about Defense Spending anyway, since most here favor a strong national defense; we're talking about non-defense discretionary spending.
Here's the pertinent CBO table...

Discretionary Outlays, 1962-2002

(As a percentage of GDP)

Defense International Domestic Total

1962 9.2 1.0 2.5 12.7

1963 8.9 0.9 2.7 12.5

1964 8.6 0.7 3.0 12.3

1965 7.4 0.7 3.2 11.3

1966 7.8 0.7 3.4 11.9

1967 8.9 0.7 3.6 13.1

1968 9.4 0.6 3.6 13.6

1969 8.7 0.4 3.2 12.4

1970 8.1 0.4 3.4 11.9

1971 7.3 0.3 3.7 11.3

1972 6.7 0.4 3.8 10.9

1973 5.9 0.4 3.7 9.9

1974 5.6 0.4 3.6 9.6

1975 5.6 0.5 4.0 10.1

1976 5.2 0.4 4.5 10.1

1977 4.9 0.4 4.6 10.0

1978 4.7 0.4 4.8 9.9

1979 4.7 0.4 4.6 9.6

1980 4.9 0.5 4.7 10.1

1981 5.2 0.4 4.5 10.1

1982 5.8 0.4 3.9 10.1

1983 6.1 0.4 3.8 10.3

1984 5.9 0.4 3.5 9.9

1985 6.1 0.4 3.5 10.0

1986 6.2 0.4 3.3 10.0

1987 6.1 0.3 3.1 9.5

1988 5.8 0.3 3.1 9.3

1989 5.6 0.3 3.1 9.0

1990 5.2 0.3 3.2 8.7

1991 5.4 0.3 3.3 9.0

1992 4.9 0.3 3.4 8.6

1993 4.5 0.3 3.4 8.2

1994 4.1 0.3 3.4 7.8

1995 3.7 0.3 3.4 7.4

1996 3.5 0.2 3.2 6.9

1997 3.3 0.2 3.1 6.7

1998 3.1 0.2 3.0 6.4

1999 3.0 0.2 3.0 6.3

2000 3.0 0.2 3.1 6.3

2001 3.1 0.2 3.2 6.5

2002 3.4 0.3 3.5 7.1

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Up front, let's understand that Presidents aren't responsible for the budget in the year in which they take office. That is the responsibility of the outgoing President. So President Reagan's Budgets are highlighted in red, from 1982 through 1989.
As of this writing, President Bush only has one bodget in this table for which he is responsible, 2002, which I've highlighted in blue. I've bold faced the numbers for non-defense and total discretionary spending of their outgoing predecessors, Presidents Carter and Clinton.
Note that in the President Carter's last year, non-defnese discretionary spending stood at 4.5% of GDP. It immediately dropped to 3.9% in President Reagan's first year, and held firm or declined in every one of his budgets, eventually ending up at 3.1% of GDP.
In President Bush's first year, he increased non-defense discretionary spending from President Clinton's final 3.2% of GDP, up to 3.5%, higher than it's been since 1985, when President Reagan was bringing it down.
President Reagan, like President Bush, had a legislature with only one chamber held by the GOP. Yet non-defense discretionary spending only declined under President Reagan, while it has increased under President Bush.
Looking at total discretionary spending, we see a 0.6% jump for President Bush over President Clinton, from 6.5% to 7.1%.
With President Reagan, however, we see that his total discretionary spending peaked in 1983 at 10.3%, only 0.2% higher than President Carter's final 10.1%, before dropping to 9.0% at the end of his term.
Again, President Reagan's figures include Cold War defense spending, which was a more expensive enterprise than the War on Terror.
Then numbers for President Bush are too few for a good sample, but one certainly can't extrapolate a trend of fiscal restraint from them.

GWB's non-defense discretionary spending is a greater percentage of GDP than Reagan's was, in Reagan's last four budgets.

Misleading.

Bush has had only one year to make such a comparison and that one year includes about a 20 billion dollar increase for homeland defense that IS part of "domestic" spending as listed by the CBO. And even if you DO count in that 20 billion increase, Bushs 2002 spending of 3.5% is lower than Reagans 3.9% in 1982.

Then numbers for President Bush are too few for a good sample, but one certainly can't extrapolate a trend of fiscal restraint from them.

I agree with that.

Thanks for providing that raw data.

Some observations. In the first 3 years of Reagan's presidency, he does seem to have spent more as a % of GDP than GWB, and yes, the budget cycles are such that only 1 of those years can be validly compared.

And yes, I agree that RR had a more expensive Cold War to fund, but yes, I also agree this is about discretionary expenditures more than defense.

Let's also note that given this is a matter of "% of GDP", then a growing economy is going to improve one's percentage. That would have been . . . hmmm, I don't remember if Volker's work really had taken hold by then or not. Regardless, the point is to do the comparison in a really thorough manner we need to know the GDP growth numbers RR vs GWB had to work with. But without going to get that data, these numbers you've provided are nevertheless illuminating.

So we really have only one number to compare. Your choosing Reagan's last years of 8 versus Bush's first 2 is probably not a valid comparision. We should look only at the numbers that purely compare, i.e., RR's 2nd year vs Bush's 2nd year. That's a pure 1:1 comparison. For RR that is 1982 and his discretionary spending was 3.9% of GDP. GWB's was 3.5% of GDP.

The Clinton years are largely invalid because of the growing economy he inherited and the arrival of the dot com boom, but it is particularly useful to note how he drastically gutted the military. His reduction in total spending derives from that and the dot com boom that affected the %.

So interesting overall. Clearly GWB has spent less in discretionary spending than the same year of presidency for RR. Also, frankly, the numbers don't move much overall. 3.5ish% seems to be the multi decade standard for discretionary spending as a % of GDP.