Just a quick observation: for the past couple of days I’ve been seeing in a lot of places, including comments on this blog, the assertion that federal spending has risen 37 percent under Obama — that specific number. Does anyone know where it’s coming from? Because if I look at the actual data, I see federal spending rising from $3.475 trillion in fourth-quarter 2008 to $3.917 trillion in fourth-quarter 2012 — a rise of 12.7 percent.
Obviously this is coming from somewhere, and being broadcast by Rush or somebody. But it’s still kind of amazing how a totally wrong number can become part of what everyone on the right just knows to be true.
Not only that – look at this:
That’s the natural log of federal spending per-capita. As you can see, it grows slowly, then a little more quickly, then back to slowly, then aaaaaalmost flatlines during the Clinton administration, then takes off during the Bush administration. When the recession hits it accelerates before hitting a total wall. That’s what austerity looks like.
You can also see this as a percentage change:
That’s the first instance of federal spending per-capita shrinking in…well, how long?
Looks like the answer is “since Eisenhower got us out of Korea.”
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
04/28/2013 at 21:14
Pete
So if government A goes from $100,000 spending per capita down to $90,000 spending per capita, we are to say that this government is as “austere” as a government going from $10 spending per capita down to $9 spending per capita?
And what kind of stupid name is that for Krugman (the wizard)? Talk about cult of personality.
04/29/2013 at 19:20
squarelyrooted
Obviously the base matters, but it is notable that under the ostensibly-conservative administrations of RR and GWG federal-spending-per-capita continued to rise and under the deficit-reducing administration of WC federal-spending-per-capita continued to rise; so in some sense what we are experiencing is without precedent in the lifetimes of most Americans.
And I thought it clear that one could endearingly refer to Paul Krugman as, for example, “The Wizard” without anyone believing that you actually think he’s Gandalf the Grey. At least I didn’t compare him to Voltron.