Plan B Forum

As an avid reader of Political Bullshit I am aware, as most of us are, that the differences between Left and Right in the U.S. political spectrum are not just differences of opinion on policy matters, but fundamental differences in exactly what the role of the Federal Government should be.

On the right - and in gross terms - the view is that the Founders had a pretty cool idea with the Tenth Amendment. That is to say, the "powers" of the Federal government should be specific and limited, and the powers of the states and the people should be constrained by, let's say, the 14th Amendment (and by "incorporation" the Bill of Rights"), but otherwise unlimited.

The Left is, I would say, enamored with the concept of "General Welfare," believing that the Federal Government ought to be able to do (they would say, "IS able to do") just about anything that it believes will promote the "general welfare" of the country, provided it doesn't directly assault the Bill of Rights or another specific provision of the Constitution.

The result of this difference in fundamental approach is not merely disagreements about policy initiatives, but disagreement on whether, in many cases, the Federal Government even has a right to articulate and enforce a policy in a given area, for example, compulsory health insurance.

As some have pointed out on this BBS, the USSC has, on more than one occasion, basically written the Tenth Amendment off as "dead letter law," and if one is willing to accept the USSC's opinion as "trumping" the written constitution - which "Tenthers" are adamantly unwilling to do, there is no problem. But of course to elevate an interpretation of a document to a higher status than the document itself is folly.

But there is a problem that simply will not go away. We are now in the proposterous position where some of the most important policy decisions of the Federal Government are totally dependent on the opinion of one or two unelected, life tenured members of the Supreme Court. They in fact outweigh the power of the Congress AND the Executive branch combined - at least that is how we have come to treat their decisions.*

And this is bullshit, particularly in country that pretends to honor the principle of "democracy."

The only solution is a Constitutional Convention, in which some body will compose and propose a number of Amendments to the US Constitution that either reinforce the concept behind the Tenth Amendment, or toss it out the window and allow the U.S. Congress to do any damn thing it deems advisable.

And I dare say that if such a convention were to come to pass, the bodies that would be charged with either ratifying or not ratifying the new Amendments would be foursquare opposed to the "General Welfare" approach, as it largely renders them (the state legislatures) powerless, except for the crumbs that Congress throws its way.

It has been said that the danger in seating a Constitutional Convention is that once seated, it cannot be constrained. There is no telling what it might come up with - even replacing the entire Constitution with something else.

But so what? The states would still have to pass the Amendments (or not), and even that would serve to bring some semblance of people-power to the Federal Government.

You want a solution to the political turmoil of the times? There it is.

And it's the last thing the Left would want. They would get their asses kicked in the resulting Amendments.

______________________________
* I personally believe that there is nothing in the Constitution that demands that the other two Branches accord higher status to the Judiciary than they themselves hold. For example, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts re-wrote their constitution a few years ago to prohibit "discrimination against gay couples" in marriage, the Governor could very well have just said, "Well, I've heard your opinion and I respect it, but I'm not going to be bound by it. Until the Mass. Constititon is amended by the Legislature, the Executive branch will not permit same-sex 'marriages.'"

dgs49 wrote:
The only solution is a Constitutional Convention, in which some body will compose and propose a number of Amendments to the US Constitution that either reinforce the concept behind the Tenth Amendment, or toss it out the window and allow the U.S. Congress to do any damn thing it deems advisable.

Why not go the whole hog, drop the ancient manuscript and all its multitudinous amendments, and start again from scratch with a modern constitution? (In the knowledge that nothing written for today's world has permanency of application, and all constitutions should be revised on a "each decade" basis.)

Why not go the whole hog, drop the ancient manuscript and all its multitudinous amendments, and start again from scratch with a modern constitution? (In the knowledge that nothing written for today's world has permanency of application, and all constitutions should be revised on a "each decade" basis.)

Bullshit, the ideal of liberty is timeless. Our problem is that we've gotten away from that, all goevernmental decisions should err to the side of maximizing liberty to the greatest extent practical.

So write a new constitution on the basis of that.

liberty1 wrote:

Why not go the whole hog, drop the ancient manuscript and all its multitudinous amendments, and start again from scratch with a modern constitution? (In the knowledge that nothing written for today's world has permanency of application, and all constitutions should be revised on a "each decade" basis.)

Bullshit, the ideal of liberty is timeless. Our problem is that we've gotten away from that, all goevernmental decisions should err to the side of maximizing liberty to the greatest extent practical.

The ideal of liberty is indeed timeless. The threats to liberty and the means of maximizing liberty are what shift and should be addressed for the modern world.

dgs49 wrote:On the right - and in gross terms - the view is that the Founders had a pretty cool idea with the Tenth Amendment. That is to say, the "powers" of the Federal government should be specific and limited, and the powers of the states and the people should be constrained by, let's say, the 14th Amendment (and by "incorporation" the Bill of Rights"), but otherwise unlimited.

The right loves big government, but only when it fits with their ideas of what it should be.

dgs49 wrote:But there is a problem that simply will not go away. We are now in the proposterous position where some of the most important policy decisions of the Federal Government are totally dependent on the opinion of one or two unelected, life tenured members of the Supreme Court. They in fact outweigh the power of the Congress AND the Executive branch combined - at least that is how we have come to treat their decisions.*

I guess you've forgotten how Supreme Court justices get their positions.

For 45 years Republican presidents have increased the size of government and the level of spending. Democrats have held both down.

yrs,
rubato

(a) As any 8th-grade civics student knows, the President cannot increase the size of government or spend a dime. The idea that Democrats pay anything more than lip service to fiscal restraint is preposterous. Even as we sit at our computers and write, the Democrats in Congress and the White House have failed to propose a single, specific entitlement cut, or any meaningful spending cut, in over two years - time during which the federal deficit has ballooned at a faster clip than ever in U.S. history.

(b) Supreme Court justices are not elected by popular vote, and never have been. They are nominated by the president, and elected by 50 or more Senators. For life. I have not "forgotten" how SC justices get their positions.

Furthermore, NONE of the SC justices offered by Democrats in recent years could ever win a popular election, as their opinions on, for example, the death penalty, abortion, and other social issues run counter to a large majority of the population - even Democrats. Which is not to say that I would favor popular election of judges, but only that the selection process could be somewhat less divorced from the public sentiment.

dgs49 wrote:(a) As any 8th-grade civics student knows, the President cannot increase the size of government or spend a dime. The idea that Democrats pay anything more than lip service to fiscal restraint is preposterous. Even as we sit at our computers and write, the Democrats in Congress and the White House have failed to propose a single, specific entitlement cut, or any meaningful spending cut, in over two years - time during which the federal deficit has ballooned at a faster clip than ever in U.S. history.

And the idea that Republicans care about fiscal responsibility is even more preposterous.

Just remember who took us from a budget surplus and kick-started the downward spiral that we're on now.

dgs49 wrote:(b) Supreme Court justices are not elected by popular vote, and never have been. They are nominated by the president, and elected by 50 or more Senators. For life. I have not "forgotten" how SC justices get their positions.

And how do the President and Senate get their positions? Oh right, they get elected. We vote for them to do their jobs as they promised to do them, part of which includes nominating and approving Supreme Court justices when the situation arises. You definitely left it out and acted like they get their positions without any possibility of refusal.

dgs49 wrote:Furthermore, NONE of the SC justices offered by Democrats in recent years could ever win a popular election, as their opinions on, for example, the death penalty, abortion, and other social issues run counter to a large majority of the population - even Democrats.

You mean all two of them? And remember, five of the nine Justices were nominated by Republicans. Two were recently nominated by President Obama, and the other two were nominated by President Clinton, nearly twenty years ago.

Just remember who took us from a budget surplus and kick-started the downward spiral that we're on now.

You mean the republican congress surplus.

Am I to read that it is seriously suggested if a senator votes to confirm a controversial appointee it will be held against them in a meaningful way next election?

bwahahahaha.

dgs49 wrote:(a) As any 8th-grade civics student knows, the President cannot increase the size of government or spend a dime. ... "

As any 8th grade civics student can tell you the president is charged with sending a budget to congress. As any student of history will tell you, congress nearly always spends what he requests. So when Reagan asked for a spending explosion and Bush II asked for a spending explosion that is what happened.

As an 8th grade civics student will tell you, the president can veto any budget bill which spends more than his pleasure allows. The president get both the first and last bites at the apple and thus dominates the process.

A very few congresses have done otherwise. Notably the democratic congress of the last two Bush I budgets CUT his spending requests by a large amount because the Reagan-Bush deficits were ballooning alarmingly.

The Republican congresses of Bush II went into spend-spend-spend overdrive.

yrs,
rubato

Republicans are bad for America:


__________________________
http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/J ... Record.htm

The Sideshow Annex

Just For the Record
by Dwight Meredith

[In late 2002, Dwight Meredith wrote a series of post on his weblog, P.L.A., comparing Democrats and Republicans in those areas in which Republicans claim to excel over Democrats - budgets, size of government, and so on. Because his weblog is on Blogspot and therefore not always reliable for finding archived material, I thought putting those posts on a single page for quick reference might be helpful to people looking that material up. Dwight has been kind enough to supply those posts for me to publish here. - Avedon]

In Part I [Wednesday, October 16, 2002], I looked at Budget Deficits:

Just for the Record

From FY1962 (the first Kennedy budget) through FY2001 (the last Clinton budget) presidents have prepared forty budgets. Control of the White House was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats with each party preparing and submitting twenty budgets. We decided to take a look at the fiscal performance of the Federal government during that period. The measurement we used was budget deficits and surpluses. We wanted to control for inflation to make the comparisons meaningful. Fortunately, the Government Printing Office publishes such information on the web. We got our data here at table 1-3. All dollars are adjusted for inflation and are expressed as 1996 dollars.

Kennedy-Johnson Administrations (FY1962-FY1969)

During the eight years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (FY1962-1969), the budget was in deficit for seven years. The largest deficit was $110.1 billion in FY1968. The only surplus was $13.4 billion in FY1969. The Kennedy-Johnson budgets added $250.9 billion to the national debt and averaged a yearly budget deficit of $31.36 billion.

Nixon-Ford Years (FY1970-FY1977)

The Nixon and Ford administrations ran deficits for each of their eight years. The highest deficit was $188 billion in FY1976. The lowest deficit was $11.1 billion in FY1970. The Nixon-Ford budgets added $702.7 billion to the national debt and averaged a yearly deficit of $87.84 billion.

Carter Years (FY1978-FY1981)

The Carter administration ran a deficit in each of its four years. The highest deficit was $136.6 billion in FY1980 and the lowest was $83.1 billion in FY1979. The Carter budgets added $482.8 billion to the national debt and averaged yearly budget deficits of $120.7 billion.

The Reagan Years (FY1982-FY1989)

The Reagan administration ran budget deficits in each of its eight years. The lowest deficit was $188.6 billion in FY1989 and the highest was $311 billion in FY1983. The Reagan years added $1.94 trillion to the national debt and averaged annual deficits of $242.23 billion.

The Bush (George Herbert Walker) Years (FY1990-FY1993)

The Bush administration ran deficits in each of its four years. The highest deficit was $318.5 bilion in FY1992. The lowest was $261.9 billion in FY1990. The Bush years added $1.16 trillion to the national debt and averaged a yearly deficit of $289.68 billion.

The Clinton Years (FY1994-FY2001)

The Clinton administration ran deficits in each of its first four years and surpluses in each of the last four years. The largest deficit was $213 billion in FY1994 and the largest surplus was $219 billion in FY2000. The Clinton years paid down a net $14.2 billion of national debt and averaged a surplus of $1.78 billion.

Summary

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.

In Part II [Thursday, October 24, 2002], I looked at the increase in non-defense Federal Government employees

Just for the Record Part II

In 1961, under the last Eisenhower budget, there were 782,000 executive branch, non-defense employees in the Federal Government. By the end of 2001 that number had risen to 1,151,000 employees. That is an increase of 369,000 employees or a 47% increase over the 40 year period.

We decided to determine in which presidential terms that increase occurred. In order to do so, we looked at the years 1962 through 2001. We assigned credit or blame to an administration for the years for which it submitted a budget. Thus, for our purposes, the Kennedy term runs from 1962-1965. The Johnson term runs from 1966-1969 etc. We got our data here at table 17-1.

Kennedy 1962-1965
The last Eisenhower budget had 782,000 non-defense employees. By the end of the Kennedy term that number had risen to 857,000. The Kennedy administration is assigned responsibility for the addition of 75,000 government employees.

Johnson 1966-1969
The Johnson years saw the number of government employees rise to 960,000. His administration is assigned responsibility for the addition of 103,000 employees.

Nixon (which include the Ford years) 1970-1977
The Nixon years saw non-defense government employees rise from 960,000 in Johnson's last year to 1,173,000 in 1977. Nixon (and Ford) have responsibility for an increase of 213,000 employees.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years, the number of non-defense federal employees dropped by 14,000.

Reagan 1982-1989
In the Reagan years, the federal workforce increased by 3,000 employees.

Bush 1990-1993
Under George Herbert Walker Bush, the number of non-defense government employees increased from 1,162,000 to 1,256,000 for a gain of 94,000 employees.

Clinton 1993-2001
During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.

Conclusion
Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.

Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.

Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.

In Part III [Sunday, October 27, 2002], I looked at economic growth:

Just for the Record Part III

Economic Growth

In the Just for the Record series of posts we look at various aspects of economic or fiscal performance for the forty-year period from 1962-2001. We chose 1962 for the starting point as it was the first year for which President Kennedy submitted a budget. Thus, for our purposes, the Kennedy term runs from 1962-1965. The Johnson term runs from 1966-1969 etc. During the forty-year period, each party controlled the White House for a total of twenty years.

In Part I, we looked at the budget deficit. In Part II we looked at the growth of non-defense employees of the federal government. In this post we look at the growth of GDP. We got our data here.

Kennedy 1962-1965
The economy grew each year of the Kennedy "term" by rates of 6.0%, 4.3%, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively. Those four years average 5.6% GDP growth.

Johnson 1966-1969
The economy grew each year of the Johnson "term" by rates of 6.6%, 2.5%, 4.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Those four years average 4.2% GDP growth.

Nixon 1970-1977
The economy grew in six of the eight Nixon (and Ford) years and fell in two years. The percentage growth for each of those years is 0.2%, 3.3%, 5.4%, 5.8%, -0.6%, -0.4%, 5.6% and 4.6%, respectively. The average of those eight years is 2.3% GDP growth.

Carter 1978-1981
The economy grew in three of the four Carter years. The percent change in GDP for those years is 5.5%. 3.2% -0.2% and 2.5% respectively. The average of those years is 2.8% GDP growth.

Reagan 1982-1989
The economy grew in seven of the eight Reagan years. The percent change in GDP for those years is –2.0%, 4.3%, 7.3%, 3.8%, 3.4%, 3.4%, 4.2% and 3.5%, respectively. The average of those years is 3.5% GDP growth.

Bush 1990-1993
The economy grew in three of the four Bush years. The percent change in GDP for those years is 1.8%, -0.5%, 3.0% and 2.7%, respectively. The average of those years is 1.8% GDP growth.

Clinton 1994-2001
The economy grew in each of the eight Clinton years by the following percentages, 4.0%, 2.7%, 3.6%, 4.4%, 4.2%, 4.9%, 3.8% and 0.3%, respectively. The average for those years is 3.5% GDP growth.

Conclusion
The economy grew in 19 of the 20 years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget and in 16 of the 20 years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget.

For the twenty years for which Republican presidents submitted budgets, the average rate of GDP growth was 2.94%.

For the twenty years in which Democratic presidents submitted budgets, the average rate of GDP growth was 3.92%.

Kevin Drum of CalPundit has looked at economic growth by party of the President for the period from 1948 through 2001. He used "lag times" of 3, 4 and 5 years in assigning responsibility for economic performance to a President. In each case, economic growth was higher in Democratic administrations than in Republican administrations.

In Part IV [Sunday, October 27, 2002], I looked at Unemployment: Just for the Record Part IV

Unemployment

In the Just for the Record series of posts we look at various aspects of economic or fiscal performance for the forty-year period from 1962-2001. We chose 1962 for the starting point as it was the year in which President Kennedy submitted his first budget. Thus, for our purposes, the Kennedy term runs from 1962-1965. The Johnson term runs from 1966-1969 etc. During the forty-year period, each party controlled the White House for a total of twenty years.

In Part I, we looked at the budget deficit. In Part II we looked at the growth of non-defense employees of the federal government. In Part III, we looked at growth in GDP. In this post we look at unemployment. We got our data here.

Kennedy 1962-1965
During the Kennedy years the unemployment rate was 5.5%, 5.7%, 5.2% and 4.5%, respectively. Those four years average an unemployment rate of 5.2%.

Johnson 1966-1969
During the Johnson years the unemployment rate was 3.8%, 3.8%, 3.6% and 3.5%, respectively. Those four years average an unemployment rate of 3.7%.

Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years the unemployment rate was 4.9%, 5.9%, 5.6%, 4.9%, 5.6%, 8.5%, 7.7% and 7.1% respectively. Those eight years average an unemployment rate of 6.3%.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years the unemployment rate was 6.1%, 5.8%, 7.1% and 7.6% respectively. Those four years average an unemployment rate of 6.7%.

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years the unemployment rate was 9.7%, 9.6%, 7.5%, 7.2%, 7.0%, 6.2%, 5.5%, and 5.3% respectively. Those eight years average an unemployment rate of 7.3%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years the unemployment rate was 5.6%, 6.8%, 7.5% and 6.9% respectively. Those four years average an unemployment rate of 6.7%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years the unemployment rate was 6.1%, 5.6%, 5.4%, 4.9%, 4.5%, 4.2%, 4.0% and 4.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an unemployment rate of 4.9%.

Conclusion
For the twenty years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 6.75%.

For the twenty years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1%.

Kevin Drum of CalPundit has looked at unemployment rates by party of the President for the period from 1948 through 2001. He used "lag times" of 3, 4 and 5 years in assigning responsibility for economic performance to a President. In each case, unemployment was lower in Democratic administrations than in Republican administrations.

In Part V [Thursday, October 31, 2002], I looked at inflation:

Just for the Record Part V

Inflation

In the Just for the Record series of posts, we look at various aspects of economic or fiscal performance for the forty-year period from 1962-2001. We chose 1962 for the starting point as it was the first budget submitted by President Kennedy. Thus, for our purposes, the Kennedy term runs from 1962-1965. The Johnson term runs from 1966-1969, etc. During the forty-year period, each party controlled the White House for a total of twenty years.

In Part I, we looked at the budget deficit. In Part II, we looked at the growth of non-defense employees of the federal government. In Part III, we looked at growth in GDP. In Part IV, we looked at unemployment. In this post, we look at inflation. We got our data here.

Kennedy 1962-1965
During the Kennedy years, the inflation rate as measured by the consumer price index (CPI, all urban consumers) was 1.0%, 1.3%, 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively. Those four years average an inflation rate of 1.3%.

Johnson 1966-1969
During the Johnson years, the inflation rate was 2.9%, 3.1%, 4.2% and 5.5%, respectively. Those four years average an inflation rate of 3.9%.

Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years, the inflation rate was 5.7%, 4.4%, 3.2%, 6.2%, 11.0%, 9.1%, 5.8% and 6.5%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 6.5%.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years, the inflation rate was 7.6%, 11.3%, 13.5% and 10.3%, respectively. Those four years average an inflation rate of 10.7%.

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years, the inflation rate was 6.2%, 3.2%, 4.3%, 3.6%, 1.9%, 3.6%, 4.1% and 4.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 4.0%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years, the inflation rate was 5.4%, 4.2%, 3.0% and 3.0%, respectively. Those four years average an inflation rate of 3.9%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years, the inflation rate was 2.6%, 2.8%, 3.0%, 2.3%, 1.6%, 3.2%, 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 2.7%.

Conclusion
For the twenty years in which Republican presidents submitted a budget, the inflation rate averaged 4.96%.

For the twenty years in which Democratic presidents submitted a budget, the inflation rate averaged 4.26%.

Kevin Drum of CalPundit has looked at inflation rates by party of the President for the period from 1948 through 2001. He used "lag times" of 3, 4 and 5 years in assigning responsibility for economic performance to a President. In each case, inflation rate was lower in Democratic administrations than in Republican administrations.

In Part IV [Thursday, November 07, 2002], I looked at the growth in federal spending as well as the growth in non-defense federal spending:

Just for the Record Part VI

Growth of Federal Spending

In the Just for the Record series of posts we look at various aspects of economic or fiscal performance for the forty-year period from 1962-2001.

We chose 1962 for the starting point as it was the first budget submitted by President Kennedy. Thus, for our purposes, the Kennedy term runs from 1962-1965. The Johnson term runs from 1966-1969 etc. During the forty-year period, each party controlled the White House for a total of twenty years.

In Part I, we looked at the budget deficit. In Part II we looked at the growth of non-defense employees of the federal government. In Part III, we looked at GDP growth. In Part IV, we looked at unemployment. In Part V we looked at inflation.

We received an e-mail from Aziz Poonawalla of Unmedia requesting that do a Just for the Record post concerning the growth of Federal non-defense spending. We decided to analyze both the growth of total Federal spending and the growth of Federal non-defense spending. For both, we got our raw data here at Table 3-1. The Cogent Provacateur has noted that the data is also available here.

First, we look at the growth of total Federal spending.

Total Federal Spending

Kennedy 1962-1965
During the Kennedy years the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.31%, 4.20%, 6.48% and a reduction of 0.25% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 4.94%.

Johnson 1966-1969
During the Johnson years the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.79%, 17.05%, 13.13% and 3.09%, respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 9.27%.

Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years the growth rate of total Federal spending was 6.54%, 7.42%, 9.76%, 6.51%, 9.67%, 23.38%, 11.87% and 10.07%, respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 11.73%.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years, the growth rate of total federal spending was 12.10%, 9.87%, 17.24% and 14.77%. Those four years average a growth rate of 13.50%

Reagan 1982-1989
During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.58%, 5.68%, 4.32% and 2.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 5.40%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%

Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 7.57%

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 6.96%.

Next, we look at the growth of non-defense Federal spending.

Growth of Non-Defense Federal Spending

Kennedy 1962-1965
During the Kennedy years the percentage growth of Federal non-defense spending was 13.20%, 6.31%, 10.11%, and 6.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 8.91%.

Johnson 1966-1969
During the Johnson years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.04%, 12.60%, 11.81% and 5.13% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 10.65%.

Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 12.67%, 15.22%, 15.38%, 11.60%, 12.38%, 29.37%, 14.79% and 10.56% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 15.24%.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.55%, 9.44%, 17.87% and 13.96% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 13.70%.

Reagan 1982-1989

During the Reagan years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was and 7.70%, 6.71%, 4.34%, 11.08%, 3.37%, 0.70%, 7.20% and 8.52% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.20%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.54%, 10.19%, 3.07%, and 3.24% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 7.51%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 5.53%, 5.38%, 4.10%, 2.78%, 4.01%, 3.10%, 4.71% and 4.09% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 4.21%.
Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.

Finally, when Glenn Reynolds said that "the left" was "utterly wrong" on a number of issues including the economy, I took issue here:

Utterly Wrong

Professor Reynolds, in this post, writes that, "See, the Left has already shown itself utterly wrong with regard to...the economy…."

We are not sure whom Mr. Reynolds considers to be the "left." If he is talking about Democrats and Republicans, he is "utterly wrong." This is a subject on which we have blogged repeatedly. We looked at the forty years of Kennedy through Clinton. Consider the following:

1) Economic growth averaged 2.94% under Republican Presidents and 3.92% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.

2) Inflation averaged 4.96% under Republicans and 4.26% under Democrats. See this post.

3) Unemployment averaged 6.75% under Republicans and 5.1% under Democrats. See this post.

4) Total federal spending rose at an average rate of 7.57% under Republican Presidents and at an average rate of 6.96% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.

5) Total non-defense federal spending rose at an average rate of 10.08% under Republicans and at an average rate of 8.34% under Democrats. See this post.

6) During the forty-year period studied, the National Debt grew by $3.8 trillion under budgets submitted by Republican Presidents and by $720 billion under budgets submitted by Democratic Presidents. Stated differently, the average annual deficit under Republicans was $190 billion; and, while under Democrats, it was $36 billion. See this post.

7) During the period studied, under Republican Presidents the number of federal government non-defense employees rose by 310,000, while the number of such employees rose by 59,000 under Democrats. See this post.

Those facts make it difficult to argue that Republican Presidents have done a better job than Democratic Presidents in managing the economy. Indeed, if someone will suggest a measure of economic performance in which Republican Presidents have done better than Democratic Presidents, we will be happy to look into the issue. Surely there must be some measure of economic performance that favors the Republicans; however, we have been unable to locate it.

Just proves that a person with an axe to grind and enough time can prove just about anything he wants to prove. The first two years of the O'Bama administration, when we had Democrat majorities in both house of Congress and the most liberal Democrat in history in the White House pretty much showed the American people what they needed to know about where the Democrat party wants to take this country.

It was a fucking disaster, which continues now, only mildly abated by the turning out of the Democrat majority in the House.

We are now in a holding pattern until November 2012, when the job will be completed.

dgs49 wrote:Just proves that a person with an axe to grind and enough time can prove just about anything he wants to prove.

I believe that you have proven this far more adeptly than anyone else here ever could.

dgs49 wrote:The first two years of the O'Bama administration, when we had Democrat majorities in both house of Congress and the most liberal Democrat in history in the White House pretty much showed the American people what they needed to know about where the Democrat party wants to take this country.

And President Bush took us on a merry trip away from a budget surplus and into a long bloody war in the Middle East.

And the current Republican Party would rather watch the country burn than actually compromise with the President in any way.