From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Republican Controlled Congress
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:31:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago


In article <1992Aug29.053515.5288@lonex.rl.af.mil> jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.104623.10048@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>
>>From 1981 thru 1986 the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and
>>had a working majority (along with conservative Democrats) 
>>in the House of Reps.
>
>>In billions (%GNP):
>>year  GNP     receipts     outlays        deficit     N Debt     admin
>>====  ====    ==========   ===========   =========   ======     ======
>>1980  2674    517 (19.3)    591 (22.1)    74 (2.8)    908(33.9) Carter
>>1981  2986    599 (20.1)    678 (22.7)*   79 (2.6)    998(33.4) Reagan
>>1982  3130    618 (19.7)    745 (23.8)*  127 (4.1)  1,142(36.5) Reagan
>>1983  3325    601 (18.1)    808 (24.3)*  207 (6.2)  1,377(41.4) Reagan
>>1984  3688    666 (18.1)    852 (23.1)*  185 (5.0)  1,572(42.6) Reagan
>>1985  3958    734 (18.5)    946 (23.9)*  212 (5.4)  1,823(46.1) Reagan
>>1986  4177    769 (18.4)    990 (23.7)*  221 (5.3)  2,125(50.9) Reagan
>>1987  4442    854 (19.2)   1004 (22.6)   150 (3.4)  2,350(52.9) Reagan
>>1988  4771    909 (19.1)   1064 (22.3)   155 (3.2)  2,602(54.5) Reagan
>>1989  5121    976 (19.1)   1137 (22.2)   161 (3.1)  2,857(55.8) Bush
>>
>>* Republican controlled White House, Senate, & working majority in the House.
>>
>>Notice how spending (%GNP) *increased* when the Republican's were in control.
>>
>
>Will the argument against this be that Democrats still controlled
>legislation by controlling the key committees, e.g. Ways and Means?
>Will Reublicans take the tack that the domestic expenditures were lavish
>in view of our urgent need for a military buildup, complete with
>the Caesarean casuistry that said buildup caused the collapse of the USSR?  
>For now, I see these figures as evidence against a popular myth.  
>DEMOCRATS TAX AND SPEND!
>DEMOCRATS TAX AND SPEND!
>DEMOCRATS TAX AND SPEND!
>Even the most ardent liberal cringes to hear the accusation,  
>feelng the kindergarten-like litany "tax and spend" to be irritatingly true.
>I have believed this to be among the most vulnerable areas of my own 
>political position in argument, not from coherent debate 
>concerning social priorities, but from bludgeoning, Orwellian 
>repetition that forces one to concede all points to the opposition,
>even so far as to believe that the mindless incantation that ended
>all discussion was true. I feel positively rejuvenated!  Should I?
>What's the catch, here?  Can I wheel out this chart and smash 
>Republicans willy-nilly, or will I just open up the next layer of
>the onion?  The very Liberal ass's jawbone of a chart!  8^)

   Not really.  The Democrats have well-earned their Tax and Spend
Reputation.  Out of the top 100 spenders in the House, exactly
four are Republicans.  The Republicans have representatives at numbers
#45,#89, #90, and #92 on the list of top 100 spenders.  My personal 
representative is #18 and has been in office since 1973.  She wants
us to spend an additional $315b/year.

   However, my real point is that your interpretation of the above
chart really misses the point.  You seem to naturally assume that
the deficits were due solely due to defense.  This is certainly what the
media and the Democrats have told you over and over so it is
not surprising.  However, take into account that in 1981 Entitlement
spending was $313b/year.  By 1989, entitlement spending was $533b/year.
That is a difference of $220b year and more than accounts for
the deficit by itself.  Entitlement spending now is $728b/year.  This
is a difference of $415b/year, which still more than makes up the
deficit.  Defense spending has been declining since 1985.

  Currently, over 70% of our budget is "mandatory" spending.  

  Finally, if you look at the above chart, you will see that revenues
as a percent of GNP decreased as expenditures increased (though overall
over Reagan's term they decreased.)  What the above chart is missing
is that the proposed outlays by Reagan were much less than the actual
outlays.

  Federal Budget Outlays,
  Proposed and Actual
  (Dollar Amounts in Billions)

Fiscal 
Year       	Proposed	Actual
______________________________________

1981		$  655.2	$  678.2
1982		$  695.3	$  745.8
1983		$  773.3	$  808.4
1984		$  862.5	$  851.8
1985		$  940.3	$  946.4
1986		$  973.7	$  990.3
1987		$  994.0	$1,003.9
1988		$1,024.3	$1,064.1
1989		$1,094.2	$1,144.2

Source:  Budget Message of the President, Fiscal Years 1981-1989;
Budget of the Unites States, FY, 1993, Part Five, Table 1.3, page 5-18.  
Proposed outlays for 1981 from the March 1981 FY 1982 Budget Revisions.

  Actually, even these proposals are a great deal more than Reagan
had planned for in 1981.

  IMPORTANT POLITICAL NOTE: 

  However, from a political standpoint, I will add the following.  
The last gasp of the Republican controlled Senate was to
impose Gramm-Rudman-Hollings.  It is this bill that slowed the growth
from 1986-1989.  I think the original poster's analysis doesn't quite
get causality correct.  It has been argued that the Republicans lost
control of the Senate because they proposed spending cuts (G-R-H) that
teed off special interests.  The original poster's conclusion is that
the spending went down when Republicans lost control, I would argue
that it is the reverse. (The Republicans lost control because they
decided to get spending under control with G-R-H.)
 

  Actually, I was undecided on the BBA until I saw the list of which
representatives were against it.  On average, congress people that
supportered the BBA proposed an increase of $23b/year per person. Those
that were against the BBA proposed an average increase of $137b/year
per person and were primarily Democrats.  Only 16 of the top 100 spenders
supported the BBA.  Those who did not support it were typically big spenders
supported by big spending special interests.


  Please let me know if any of this is unclear.  I have quite a little
stack of information on this topic and I'm not always terribly clear
and good at getting my point across in quick USENET posts.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: sci.econ