[general_re]

Would any of you care to address the facts rather than the rhetoric. Who cares who said it, these are substantive accusations, which your reluctance to address indicates is an attempt to avoid the truth.

Under either Republican presidents or Republican Congresses, federal spending as a percentage of GDP has been generally declining since 1985, and is currently at it's lowest level since about 1965 (18.4%). Upon what, exactly, are these predictions of rampant spending increases based, since it's clearly not the historical record?

Federal Outlays, 1962 to 2001 (As a percentage of GDP)

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

[rb22982]

Because the figures cited in the article are in real figures, not as a % of GDP. Both ways of viewing them are correct.

[winner45]

re: msg #35 by general_re

There has been a vast shift in federal spending priorities since the late 1960s when defense spending and non-defense spending, other than interest, were of about the same magnitude. Today, non-defense spending is four and one-half times larger than federal spending on defense. Both defense and nondefense spending are up sharply in the last couple of years.

http://www.cato.org/fiscal/2002/factsfigs.html

[Ahban]

That graph tells me that defense has gone way down while Social Security and the like plus interest expense has gone way up.

[antidisestablishment]

Now I am not a math major and I never took statistics, but it appears to me that two trends are quite noticeable on your graph:

1. The trend in each sector is upwards after 2000.
2. The trend in Social programs has been upward and larger.

I think we need to get a larger picture to see the real trends. After all every statistician will tell you that restricting the domain results in a distorted picture:

Quite a big difference and this doesn't even address the fact that using GDP as a measure really distorts the actual growth rate of government and the cost of compliance. Plus the CBO uses accounting procedures that make Enron accountants look like kindergardeners. If you or I fixed our books like the Feds, we would be in jail--no questions asked!

[wcbtinman]

"...it's clearly not the historical record."

Your historical record conviently ends at 2001, and unless my eyes decieve me, about the year 2000, the line(s) start an upward trend. It's the period after Bush was elected that is subject to the claim of major increases in spending. And, your graphic indicates that very claim to be true.

The Bush administration will grant us "tax cuts" for political purposes, and then give us increased "user fees" to more than make up the difference. This subterfuge was started under the Clinton administration, and has continued unabated. It's the politicians version of the free lunch.

"User fees" are nothing more than a tax.