Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Big Is Bush's Big Government?
Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | April 18, 2006 | Mark Brandly

Posted on 04/26/2006 2:14:17 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan

When teaching economics I sometimes find it beneficial to use government budget data to apply the lessons of economics to our current political circumstances. The students tend to be surprised at the size of our government, the amount of tax revenues that we "pay," and the amount of government debt. The following numbers get the point across.

We, in the United States, live under the rule of the largest civil government, measured in budgetary terms, in history. Federal spending alone in fiscal year 2006 is expected to be over $2.7 trillion, which means the federal government spends $7.4 billion a day or $5.1 million in every minute of the year. This is 815 times the level of federal spending in 1930.

Things have been getting worse recently. In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%. Readers of Mises.org may remember that they were warned about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility before he took office. For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%, and under Bush I federal spending increased 23% in four years. In the 2000 election, Bush II promised to shovel money into all sorts of programs — and he's kept that promise.

Since 1930, in addition to the spending increases, the feds also drove prices up more than 1,100%, according to the Consumer Price Index. Also, we should suspect that these inflation numbers are low since government officials have an incentive to underestimate inflation.

If we adjust the spending numbers to account for this inflation, real federal spending is 65 times larger than it was in 1930. The US population has more than doubled since 1930 and if we take the population changes into account, real per capita spending is 27 times higher than in 1930.

In estimating real federal spending I'm not dismissing the effects of inflation, nor am I absolving the state of its complicity in driving prices up. These calculations are simply an attempt to give us some idea of the growth in government and the attendant loss of our liberties over the last several decades.

This $2.7 trillion in federal spending breaks down to $9,000 per capita or more than $36,000 for the average family of four. If we add in all state and local spending, then total government depredations (a term Murray Rothbard used to describe the greater of government spending and government receipts) are currently over $4.4 trillion or about $14,700 per person annually. Since 1959, government depredations, in real terms, have increased at an average annual rate of 4%. That kind of spending will buy a lot of votes.

A significant portion of this spending is being financed with government borrowing. In 1930, the per capita debt load was $140 per person. The current federal total debt level is $8.4 trillion, which works out to around $28,000 per person. In short, the per capita debt load is 200 times larger than it was in 1930. Adjusting for inflation, the real debt per capita is still over 16 times more than it was in 1930.

Federal government debt increased $553 billion in fiscal year 2005 alone. That's more than $1.5 billion of additional debt per day and over $1 million of borrowing per minute for every minute of the year. The interest on the debt in 2005 was $352 billion or more than $1,100 for every man, woman, and child in the country. These interest payments are roughly equal to 37% of federal income tax revenues.

Much of this debt is owed to the Federal Reserve. US taxpayers are on the hook for $758 billion of government securities that are held by the Fed. So on average, every person in the country owes the Fed about $2500.

Tax revenues and borrowing have financed all sorts of interventions. Since 1959, we have suffered from the Great Society, the war on poverty, price controls, increasingly burdensome environmental regulations, the establishment of the Department of Education and its increasing federal control over local schools, Federal Reserve created recessions, agricultural price supports, minimum wage laws, and energy policies that keep oil and gasoline prices high.

There's more. We've also had labor policies that increase the costs of hiring workers driving down their take-home pay, trade restrictions and trade agreements that give the feds control over our international trade, massive increases in the welfare state, the drug war, endless pork barrel spending, and the prosecution of businessmen for political gain. There have also been the wars to extend the US empire, from the Vietnam War to the Iraq War. A partial list of the other military interventions would include conflicts in Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Panama, the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan. I could go on, but you get the idea.

One way to see the harm of government intervention is to realize its effects on our standard of living. The depredations of the state reduce the incentives to be productive, destroy our capital base, and have a negative effect on economic growth. From 1959 to 2005, adjusting the numbers using the implicit price deflator, real Gross Domestic Product increased an average of 3.37% annually.

Consider the possibility that government interventions reduced real economic growth 1% annually during this time. If there had been an additional 1% per year economic growth since 1959 then real GDP would currently be 55% higher than it is. The 2005 GDP of $12,479 billion would have been $19,342 billion. The median family income is estimated to be $44,389. A proportionate increase in this statistic results in a median income of $68,800.

In this scenario, a worker with a salary of $44,389 who is losing 35% of his salary to taxes has a tax liability of $15,536. After paying the various types of taxes he gets to keep only $28,853 of his salary. With the extra 1% growth per year since 1959, if that worker represented the average, his gross salary would be $68,800 and he would get to keep all of it.

  Higgs on the enemy: $19

It is conceivable that the $4.4 trillion of annual depredations could have caused more than 1% annual damage to our economic growth since 1959. What are the implications of a 2% negative impact on GDP? If the absence of interventions had added an additional 2% annual growth, this would have resulted in 141% more output today. The 2005 GDP would have been over $30 trillion and the median family income would now be $107,000. The worker described above with the $44,389 gross salary and the $28,850 of after tax pay, would have an income of $107,000. The depredations have reduced his net income by 73%.

The point here is that we cannot precisely know the magnitude of the damages that intervention has on the economy but we do know that those damages compound over time, resulting in significant negative effects on our prosperity.

Those of us making the case for liberty have logic, history, and morality on our side. Government intervention is immoral and should be stopped for that reason alone. However, the economic costs of the intervention are also important. Part of the appeal of freedom is that it leads to tremendously higher standards of living and these numbers show that government interventions that cause seemingly small amounts of harm, over time, impoverish a society.


Mark Brandly teaches economics at Ferris State University and is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; bush43
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2006 2:14:20 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Yeah, but when the alternative is Gore or Kerry...


2 posted on 04/26/2006 2:16:35 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

With Bush all we got was Clinton-lite.


3 posted on 04/26/2006 2:18:02 PM PDT by PeterFinn (Anita Bryant was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

So really the alternative is Big Government as we have it now...or Big Government under Gore or Kerry. Okay, so your point is that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't???


4 posted on 04/26/2006 2:18:02 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

"With Bush all we got was Clinton-lite"

Fiscally, I'm not even sure it's "lite".


5 posted on 04/26/2006 2:20:48 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

It's Big Government under Bush, or Bigger Government under Gore or Kerry. Damned if we do, damned deeper if we don't.


6 posted on 04/26/2006 2:21:23 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Bush has increased government faster than Clinton thus it is likely that Gore and Kerry wouldn't been any worse, at least if history is any guide. Was Kerry, for example, more pro-big govenrment than Clinton? I see little reason to believe he was.


7 posted on 04/26/2006 2:21:37 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton; PeterFinn
In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%. Readers of Mises.org may remember that they were warned about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility before he took office. For comparison's sake, during the eight Clinton years nominal federal spending increased 32%...
8 posted on 04/26/2006 2:22:59 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

So is this "expert" a liberal?


9 posted on 04/26/2006 2:25:06 PM PDT by stopem (To allow a bunch of third world country nationals to divide Americans is unconscionable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Your facts and figures sound correct, but your assumptions are unproven. How do you know, for example, that government spending has decreased real GDP growth? You may recall that a balanced budget certainly did not end the Great Depression. In fact, the massive federal spending and resulting budget deficits duing WWII most likely ended the depression. Some economists believe that the stimulus of federal spending is required to propel the economy to more consistent positive growth. I understand your point of view, but I just don't see the support for your underlying assumptions.
10 posted on 04/26/2006 2:25:54 PM PDT by PubliusToo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

True, but as I didn't vote for either of them then why am I having to put up with what appears to look like the kinds of foolishness they'd do? I may as well have voted for Gore or Kerry as they would:

1) Screw up the war in Iraq by catering to the media instead of focusing on military objectives.

2) Spend billions and billions of dollars without any control or any end in sight.

3) Whore themselves to China to score some political donations from Americans who sell their birthright to China.

4) Silence Chinese dissidents who protest the wholesale slaughter and imprisonment of people the Communists don't like.

5) Whore themselves to the illegal aliens who illegally vote Democrat.

6) Whore themselves to Mexico to please liberals who hate Bush, hate America, and harbor a genocidal hatred for non-Latino Americans.

At least with Gore or Kerry in the White House I wouldn't feel conflicted for feeling that my President is a traitor.


11 posted on 04/26/2006 2:26:32 PM PDT by PeterFinn (Anita Bryant was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

Sadly, I agree.


12 posted on 04/26/2006 2:27:27 PM PDT by PeterFinn (Anita Bryant was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Under Kerry or Gore the government would not have grown so fast. The "Republicans" in the house would have acted more like Republicans.
13 posted on 04/26/2006 2:28:16 PM PDT by manwiththehands ("'Rule of law'? We don't need no stinkin' rule of law! We want AMNESTY, muchacho!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

Then why won't they act like Republicans now?


14 posted on 04/26/2006 2:30:02 PM PDT by PeterFinn (Anita Bryant was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
"In the first five years of the Bush regime, federal spending increased 45%"

Seriouly doubt any Rat would be worse.

15 posted on 04/26/2006 2:31:28 PM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

The Federal government is way too big, meddling in things that should be left up to the states. Yet were it is needed, such as stopping the invasion of our country, it waves the white flag.


16 posted on 04/26/2006 2:31:45 PM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

I agree with you. In fact, the Bush Administration has managed an extremely liberal fiscal policy. The Clinton Administration was much more fiscally conservative. During the Clinton Administration, federal revenues were higher and federal spending was lower (as a precentage of GDP) than during the Bush Administration. The net result was that the Bush Administration has turned federal budget surpluses into federal budget deficits.


17 posted on 04/26/2006 2:32:51 PM PDT by PubliusToo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
If you were to give Kerry or Gore emperor for life status they'd spend til they were using 100% of our GDP but a liberal with a republican congress wouldn't be able to pass a bill. Bush passed threw a Medicare bill bigger than Gores and the republicans vote for it because they were being loyal. If Gore was elected and he tried to push threw a smaller version of Bushs bill, the entire republican party would scream about a welfare state.

The welfare state will be the end of American democracy, mark my words. Once the majority of people get more money from the the government than the government takes from them we will never be able to vote out the welfare state. Guess what happens then, revolution, a revolution that would either limit the voting franchise or abandon democracy all together. Don't think for one minute the rich and powerful in America will sit idle by when socialists steal their money.
18 posted on 04/26/2006 2:32:59 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
Fiscally, I'm not even sure it's "lite".

It's really hard to make a "fair" comparison between the two.

Clinton's policies helped lead us into a situation where we had to go to war to address the problems we faced, and in order to fight that war we had to spend insane amounts of money to equip our military, and we've wasted immense amounts of money as a result of not having a competent and capable intelligence community because Clinton gutted it and drove out most of the competent people.

A lot of Clinton's policies have caused a lot of damage in many different ways, and Bush has been left cleaning up the mess.

However, even if none of that were the case, Bush has been horribly irresponsible with our tax dollars.

Comparing them in a fair manner isn't easy, but it's not hard to see that both have been bad.

I'm inclined to think that Clinton was worse, but the perscription drug plan and illegal immigratons enforcement under Bush may result in him costing us even more in the long run.

19 posted on 04/26/2006 2:36:30 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stopem

Libertarian, I believe.


20 posted on 04/26/2006 2:45:10 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson