Neff Zone Column -- April 18, 2009

Back up your data, pictures and music for as little as $3.75 per month. Never lose another file. More information about Carbonite from Jim Neff.

Print Edition: April 18, 2009

ONE, OR TWO LUMPS WITH YOUR TEA?　

The TEA parties last Wednesday left me a bit confused. I understand the aim of the TEA gatherings was to protest big government and tax policy. I understand that those who participated at the rallies had every right to do so; nonviolent protest is an American tradition.

What I don’t understand is where these TEA people were during the last eight years. If big government and runaway spending are such major concerns, why were they not concerns while George W. Bush was president? I mean, if a person is really a fiscal conservative, you would think they would have been shouting bloody murder from the rooftops.

Some facts from an analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University gives credence to this question (published March 16, 2009; http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=26426).

-During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ.

-In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. The largest increase took place in his last year and included, among other things, the $700 billion financial industry bailout bill (TARP) and the federal takeover of Government-Sponsored Enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

-President Bush outspent both Reagan and Clinton. Overall, total discretionary spending increased by 15.8 percent during Reagan’s terms. Over Clinton’s eight years, real discretionary spending increased by 0.1 percent. During his two terms in office, however, President Bush increased real discretionary spending by 44 percent.

-In fiscal year 2009—President Bush’s last budget—the federal government will spend $32,942.90 per household, up from $17,216.68 in FY2001. It will tax $18,286.74 per household and will run a budget deficit of $14,656.16 per household. One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

-Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. No tradeoffs were made during the Bush years between defense and nondefense outlays.

-Two other good indicators of a lack of fiscal responsibility are the costs of and number of earmarks (i.e. pork) that make their ways through the appropriations process. Between 1994 and 2005, both the cost of and the number of pork projects increased dramatically, reaching an all-time numerical high of 13,997 pork items in 2005. The year 2006 saw a slight reduction in the number of earmarks, but their costs went up to $29 billion in that single year. The year 2006 was also the last year that Republicans were in full control of both Congress and the White House. President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

-Conclusion: Republicans often claim to be the party of smaller government. Many Republicans would express support for Ronald Reagan’s observation: "Growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down." Unfortunately, once Republicans are elected to political office, they tend to fall into the Washington trap of assuming that more federal spending will solve the nation’s problems. Certainly, President Bush appears to have fallen into this trap. So did the Republicans in Congress. Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel argues…"the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government, and bad microeconomics." Frankel is incorrect about the microeconomics—Republicans generally pursue sounder tax policies than Democrats, for example—but when it comes to big government spending, the Bush Administration seems to have gone out of its way to confirm Frankel’s point.

Now, I know by this point my conservative friends are howling as they sprint to their keyboards to write lengthy rebuttals to this column. I would caution them to slow down, take a breath, and thereby avoid self-combustion.

The message here is that if you think that either party can play holier-than-thou when it comes to government spending, then you are dead wrong. You can label liberals "tax and spend" all you want, but conservatives have to admit their "borrow and spend" policies amount to basically the same thing.

So, if TEA participants were and are really serious about protesting government fiscal policies, then they need to hold the feet of every Senator, Representative, and Administration official to the fire, regardless of political party. Otherwise the protests are just meaningless political posturing.

Jim Neff is a local columnist. Comments to neffzone@gmail.com. Read Neff Zone columns online at www.neffzone.com/cadillacnews.