Since the big scare was "out of control" government spending, which scared the living shit out of small business minds that populate this country, I tried to determine the effect of the political party on the size and type of government spending. I used the BEA data on government current expenditures by function (table 3.16 http://www.bea.gov/National/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N) to calculate cumulative growth of government spending between 1961 and 2009 for each administration in the White House. The result are shown in the table below.
Republicans controlled the White House for 28 years in the reference period, and oversaw the cumulative increase of all-level government spending by 271% (in current prices) and increase of federal government spending by 275% (in current prices.)
Democrats controlled the White House for 20 years in the reference period, and oversaw the cumulative increase of all level government spending by 191% and federal government - by 184% (again, both in current prices.)
This indicated that overall government spending is not affected by which political party is in power. Republicans contributed a larger overall cumulative increase but they had 8 more years to do so than Democrats.
As far as spending on specific functions is concerned - the trend pretty much mirrors that in overall spending, especially in defense, and - surprise surprise - housing, and welfare spending (which is different than social insurance, i.e. retirement, disability and unemployment). There are, however, a few notable exceptions.
Thus Republicans increased federal spending on transit and railways by 581% while Democrats shrunk (sic!) federal spending on this "green" function by 4%. But their net increase in federal highway spending is zero, while Republicans added 383%
Democrats increased federal spending on education by 507%, while Republicans added "only" 319%. But then education is funded mostly by state and local taxes, so it does not matter that much.
Democrats and Republicans also "contributed" almost equal shares to health spending, but since Republicans had 8 less years to do so, Democrats can be considered a slightly faster health spender than Republicans.
Of course a more detailed analysis of these data may take into account which party had the majority in Congress - but I do not think it would change the picture that much.
To sum this up, it does not really matter than much which party is in power, as far as government spending is concerned. It does not really matter that much where the public money goes either. All that brouhaha about government spending (too much or too little) is mostly propaganda and scare tactic to bamboozle the pea-brain electorate. The "historic" victory of teabaggers my ass - it does not mean jack shit other than making some ugly old white farts happy for a day or two.
Wojtek
*Cumulative changes in government spending (current prices), 1961-2009, by WH administration, by function*
Years in office 28 20
Rep. Dem.
ALL GOVERNMENT Total Government 271% 191%
National defense 203% 147%
Public order and safety 328% 225%
Highways 222% 172%
Transit and railroad 739% 18%
General economic and labor affairs 233% 219%
Housing and community services 391% 166%
Health 394% 344%
Education 264% 222%
Income security 334% 164%
Welfare and social services 350% 188%
Social insurance* 330% 160%
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Federal government 275% 184%
National defense 203% 146%
Public order and safety 521% 243%
Highways 383% 0%
Transit and railroad 581% -4%
Other economic affairs 176% 228%
Housing and community services 424% 284%
Health 441% 464%
Education 319% 507%
Income security 339% 162%
Welfare and social services 402% 191%
Social insurance* 329% 160%
*) Includes retirement, disability and unemployment benefits.
Source: BEA, NIPA Table 3.16