Terrifying Is The Correct Word

[Kathianne]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/13/te...-federal-spend
<header> Terrifying: Increases in Real Per Capita Federal Spending Over The Past 35 Years

Nick Gillespie|<time datetime="2012-09-13T13:58:00+00:00">Sep. 13, 2012 9:58 am</time>
</header>
The above chart put together by my frequent collaborator Veronique de Rugy is, simply put, terrifying.


It shows the growth in inflation-adjusted federal outlays per capita. So what you're looking at is a trend line that accounts for population growth and inflation.


Two things stand out: George W. Bush was god-awful. And Barack Obama looks to be even worse (note: fiscal 2009 includes spending attributable to both adminstrations).


A third observation: The Republicans seem to be the ones who ratchet up spending while the Dems solidify that amount. Which party will grow into being the crew that brings spending down to something that is affordable?


This is no way to run a country. But it might a great way to wreck the economy. Because government spending crowds out private investment and the "debt overhang" inevitably used to pay for open-ended government spending reduces future economic growth. At least in the 21st century, neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has shown the slightest interest in actually reining in government spending. They've got slightly different reasons for keeping the cash flowing, but it will absolutely end with the same result: a broke-down and bruised body politic with a rotten future.


For more, read these two pieces by de Rugy and me: "The 19 Percent Solution: How to Balance the Budget without Raising Taxes," and "Generational Warfare: Old-Age Entitlements vs. the Welfare State,"

[logroller]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/13/te...-federal-spend
<header> Terrifying: Increases in Real Per Capita Federal Spending Over The Past 35 Years

Nick Gillespie|<time datetime="2012-09-13T13:58:00+00:00">Sep. 13, 2012 9:58 am</time>
</header>
The above chart put together by my frequent collaborator Veronique de Rugy is, simply put, terrifying.


It shows the growth in inflation-adjusted federal outlays per capita. So what you're looking at is a trend line that accounts for population growth and inflation.


Two things stand out: George W. Bush was god-awful. And Barack Obama looks to be even worse (note: fiscal 2009 includes spending attributable to both adminstrations).


A third observation: The Republicans seem to be the ones who ratchet up spending while the Dems solidify that amount. Which party will grow into being the crew that brings spending down to something that is affordable?


This is no way to run a country. But it might a great way to wreck the economy. Because government spending crowds out private investment and the "debt overhang" inevitably used to pay for open-ended government spending reduces future economic growth. At least in the 21st century, neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has shown the slightest interest in actually reining in government spending. They've got slightly different reasons for keeping the cash flowing, but it will absolutely end with the same result: a broke-down and bruised body politic with a rotten future.


For more, read these two pieces by de Rugy and me: "The 19 Percent Solution: How to Balance the Budget without Raising Taxes," and "Generational Warfare: Old-Age Entitlements vs. the Welfare State,"

As for the two stand out points, bush sucked and Obama's worse...not exactly a suprising finding.

"Which party will grow into being the crew that brings spending down to something that is affordable?"
Dare I say neither is willing to go against their abject party-line. At the very least, party leadership needs to be removed. Both sides are so marred by posturing in favor of election votes whilst pandering their congressional votes for personal gain--Prudence is lost in congress, they've got to be culled methodically and regularly--and elections alone don't cut it--Congress needs term limits just as the presidency does. I only wish there was a way to propose laws via the general election...

[Kathianne]

As for the two stand out points, bush sucked and Obama's worse...not exactly a suprising finding.

"Which party will grow into being the crew that brings spending down to something that is affordable?"
Dare I say neither is willing to go against their abject party-line. At the very least, party leadership needs to be removed. Both sides are so marred by posturing in favor of election votes whilst pandering their congressional votes for personal gain--Prudence is lost in congress, they've got to be culled methodically and regularly--and elections alone don't cut it--Congress needs term limits just as the presidency does. I only wish there was a way to propose laws via the general election...

I've never been 'sold' on term limits, they are there anytime the voters wish to impose them. Truth is that it takes time for Congressmen to learn what their committees are about, to get in the right staff, etc. Of course, if the person is there just to make himself a bundle, then his constituents should pay attention.

[logroller]

I've never been 'sold' on term limits, they are there anytime the voters wish to impose them. Truth is that it takes time for Congressmen to learn what their committees are about, to get in the right staff, etc. Of course, if the person is there just to make himself a bundle, then his constituents should pay attention.

I hear ya; term limits have the effect of limiting the expertise of the representative body to some degree...but even with the "right staff" their performance is abysmal, while federal power is ever-growing. The only thing I see as expert about their staff is the interconnected political machine of staff=>lobbyists, and I see little that will change in that department without regular turnover. Of course you're correct, constituents should pay attention, but far too many just vote the party line/"the name you know"!
Perhaps a regular turnover could have the side effect of bringing more attention to the candidate's platform and thus congressional actions, perhaps not, but with ever-growing federal powers and public debt, an increasingly agenda based MSM... the apathy in this country scares the hell outta me, that's all. Something gotta change, drastically; I don't foresee that happening if the powers that be have any say.

[Kathianne]

I hear ya; term limits have the effect of limiting the expertise of the representative body to some degree...but even with the "right staff" their performance is abysmal, while federal power is ever-growing. The only thing I see as expert about their staff is the interconnected political machine of staff=>lobbyists, and I see little that will change in that department without regular turnover. Of course you're correct, constituents should pay attention, but far too many just vote the party line/"the name you know"!
Perhaps a regular turnover could have the side effect of bringing more attention to the candidate's platform and thus congressional actions, perhaps not, but with ever-growing federal powers and public debt, an increasingly agenda based MSM... the apathy in this country scares the hell outta me, that's all. Something gotta change, drastically; I don't foresee that happening if the powers that be have any say.

I'm in a deep blue state. I live in a pink district. My representative is all I want him to be and if he continues to be, I'd vote for him over and over again. He regularly holds 'phone meetings' and sends newsletters and questionnaires. Anytime I've called his local office, he or senior staff have returned the call within 24 hours.