TheAgitator.com
Another Bush Legacy
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007Graph comes courtesy of Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute. Any wonder why lobbying is one of the top growth industries of the last six years? Most of this, by the way, was with the aid of a GOP Congress.
Um…start your y-axis at 0 please. Also, it’s all well and good to blame this on Mr. Bush (I’d love to, believe me), but we should remember that 2000-2002 was Clintonian. (oh, where’s 2005, btw?)
Heh…just kidding about 2000-2002. I’m not actually good at math. My other points stand, though.
That was your point.
Peter Henry is retarded.
I’ve been looking for a new job!
I’ve got good people skills as well!
Too bad I can’t stand any city for any length of time exceeding a couple of days.
Don’t you see? The Bush administation needed to expand the total of federal subsidy programs until it was a properly patriotic number. 9/11.
It’s fun to bash bush, and lord knows there are plenty of good reasons to bash him. But the growth of lobbying and related activities is the inevitable result of having a government that consumes about 20% of a multi-trillion dollar economy and which enacts regulations greatly effecting the other 80%.
Yes, Bush deserves criticism, but the problem is structural.
Can someone post chart with actual amounts spent under the Federal Subsidy Programs. The number of programs itself doesn’t tell you much. Even though, I agree there should be a strong correlation between the two.
yeah PeterHenry was right that graph is bogus, start at 0 not 800 and then keep up 5 year intervals not skip one.
I’m confounded on why Rove is considered anything but a village idiot. He and Bush ruined the Republican Party as the home of conservatives, grew government, busted the budget, lost the House and Senate and really didn’t get anything done except saving the Iraqis, who ought to be electing statues to Bush at this point.
Stats like this one just confirm my points. Why is Rove considered a smart operator? They had the future sitting on a silver platter, but instead decided to eat fast junky food, right now.
This is yet another reason that I can’t understand those who continue to self-identify as Republicans.
I used to look at Republicans and think it was a politically expedient way to indicate support for smaller government. Sure, they had some nanny-statist tendencies, but it made sense to me.
Today, I see nothing but evidence that the best we can do (given an intractable two-party system) is to make sure that the power is split so that neither party has completely free reign on the federal checkbook. And that’s a really terrible best-case scenario.
God i love Cato.
I’m sure total # of programs is a great indicator of government growth, but i’d also like to see what this means in actual spending. I.E. what’s the total cost of those 1776 programs.
Interestingly, Looks like the only real drop was during Regan’s first term, and one of the larger 5 year increases was during Regan’s second term.
The point about the Y-axis is a good one. This graph visually exaggerates by a factor of 4 the growth. Also, since congress became democratically controlled in 2006, it’s interesting that 2005 is left out. How much of the jump from 2000 to 2007 was in 2007? The data points seem very conveniently chosen.
Still, the main point is valid, most of those programs are simply taking my money (hard earned or otherwise) and giving it to someone else. But because the Gov. does it, it is somehow not robbery (:
This chart is more proof Republicans calling themselves Conservatives is absurd.
I have great dislike for the situation.
But to be clear, he always called himself a “compassionate conservative”. Which should – evidently – be interpreted as “get the FedGov involved in counting how many pieces of unmasticated corn can be found in your sh!t”. I guess.
The only significant drop (> 1%) is during the Reagan years (first term). Hmmm.
In terms of “assigning blame,” it would definitely be better to have data for every year (or every other – is this based on biennial budgeting or something?) and to know who controlled which houses of congress. The jump between 90 and 95, specifically, is hard to assign, although Clinton had 2 years of Dem-controlled congress in there.
I asked the Chris Edwards at Cato the question about the dollar amounts associated with the increase in programs, and he didn’t have an exact answer (“numbers are presently differently”), but provided me with Tax & Budget Bulletin No. 39 and 42, from which you can see the following dollar-percent increases in non-defense programs (2001-2007):
Agriculture – 30%
H.U.D. – 26%
Energy – 35%
International Aid – 45%
Transportation – 30%
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0207-42.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0810-39.pdf
Thanks for the 45% increase in international aid, suckers! Now I can fund my agricultural “buyback” program!
Thanks Rudd. The purpose of the chart was to show yet another angle on the growth in big government. As agitator readers know, spending has also exploded in recent years. (Note: total spending on all 1,776 programs represents most of federal spending except defense. Social Security, for example, comprises 8 of these 1,776 subsidy programs).
The drop under Reagan is no accident. It is mainly a result of OBRA81, his first budget law.
I don’t agree with the comments about starting the axis at zero. Also, there is nothing nefarious about leaving out 2005. I just didn’t get around to counting programs for that year.