>Second, if the numbers are listed in terms of inflation-adjusted growth,
>rather than percentage of GNP, what do the numbers look like?
> >>>>
>
>]mbs]: I haven't done that calculation.
>If I do I'll post it.
The % of GDP number seems more relevant, since you avoid all the complications of a price index (do the poor face a different inflation environment than the middle-income and the rich? do you deflate Medicaid by a medical price index or the general CPI? is it sensible to compare price changes over 10-20 years, when the market basket changes so radically?), and since it's a measure of how much this corpulently rich country can afford.
>NN:
>restraint at the federal level opens up political space for spending at the
>state level
Earth to Nathan: when has this ever happened? And I thought the
correct social democratic line was to federalize as much as possible,
to avoid the temptation of racing to the bottom. Do you want to trust
the fate of the miserable to state legislatures, which make Congress
look enlightened & decent?
>NN:
>Fourth, it is worth noting the cyclical issues in these numbers, since 1992
>was the bottoming out of a recession when automatic discretionary money is
>at its highest - notably unemployment insurance --
Here are some more detailed figures. The first panel shows the share of GDP represented by various spending categories; the second, the change over various intervals. The categories are pretty broad - natural resources & environment includes lots of destructive stuff, though it does represent an upper bound on the good stuff. "Administration of justice" is cops & jails. This should all be old news to LBO subscribers, since I've taken apart every one of Clinton's budgets and found them to be lots of rhetorical bombast disguising extreme tightfistedness. Note that income security excluding unemployment insurance has declined during the clinton years, in constrast to the GHWB years. Ditto education. Health spending - which excludes Medicare - has grown more slowly under Clinton than under Bush. Max has a point. Not that Shrub would do as well as his father.
PERCENT OF GDP
1980 1989 1993 1999 National defense 4.93% 5.67% 4.50% 3.16% Natural resources & environ 0.51% 0.30% 0.31% 0.28% Educ., training, employ., &
social services 1.17% 0.69% 0.77% 0.69% Health (excl Medicare) 0.85% 0.90% 1.54% 1.64% Income security 3.18% 2.54% 3.20% 2.78%
of which:
Unemployment compensation 0.66% 0.29% 0.58% 0.29%
income security
ex-unempl comp 2.52% 2.25% 2.62% 2.49% Social security 4.36% 4.35% 4.70% 4.49% Administration of justice 0.17% 0.18% 0.23% 0.28% Net interest 1.93% 3.16% 3.07% 2.60%
CHANGE IN PERCENT OF GDP
1980-89 1989-93 1993-99 1980-99 National defense +0.74% -1.18% -1.33% -1.76% Natural resources & environ -0.21% +0.01% -0.04% -0.23% Educ., training, employ., &
social services -0.49% +0.09% -0.09% -0.48% Health (excl Medicare) +0.05% +0.63% +0.10% +0.78% Income security -0.64% +0.66% -0.42% -0.40%
of which:
Unemployment compensation -0.37% +0.29% -0.30% -0.38%
income security
ex-unempl comp -0.27% +0.37% -0.13% -0.03% Social security -0.01% +0.36% -0.22% +0.13% Administration of justice +0.01% +0.05% +0.05% +0.11% Net interest +1.23% -0.09% -0.47% +0.67%
Doug