USA closes in on wealthy nation public spending average

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 13:52


Michelle Bachmann epitomizes the dishonesty and / or ignorance behind the "big government" debate:

"And what we saw this Tuesday, once the president signed the health care bill at the 11th hour in the morning on Tuesday, that effected 51% government takeover of the private economy," Bachmann said on Wednesday, during an interview with North Dakota talk radio host Scott Hennen. "It is really quite sobering what has happened. From 100% of our economy was private prior to September of 2008, but as of Tuesday, the federal government has now taken ownership or control of 51% of the private economy."

This is just blatantly false.  From 2004-2007, public spending in the United States averaged 36.7% of GDP (PDF, page 5).  The OECD (wealthy, developed democracies) average for that timeframe was 43.6% (same source).  The reforms that have been put into place over the past year are projected by usgovernmentspending.com to increase public spending as a percentage of GDP in the USA to an average of 44.4% from 2013-2015, a time period which will be post-stimulus, post-TARP and, hopefully, post-mass unemployment.  This will effectively bring the USA in line with the OECD average (although that average has likely increased since 2007, both as a result of growth in public spending in the USA, and because other OECD countries likely experienced an increase as a result of the recession).

Breathless exaggeration from the likes of Michelle Bachmann and other conservatives make it sound as though the public sector was invented whole cloth over the past two years.  The argument of "big government" versus "small government" is portrayed in grandiose terms, rather than the actual frame of the debate over a 35% public sector on the right and a 50% public sector on the left.  Or, to put it a different way, over the right-wing arguing for a 35% socialism that leans a bit more toward the military industrial complex, and the left-wing arguing for a 50% socialism that leans on single-payer health insurance.

Here is a graph of post-WWII public spending in the United States:


Even American conservatives are plenty socialist (if lemon socialist).  Public spending as a percentage of GDP under conservative governance from fiscal years 2004-2007 averaged 34.9% according to usgovernmentspending.com, and 36.7% according to the OECD.  Their collective conniption over moving the needle by about 7-9%, and bringing us in line with other wealthy democracies, is one of the most dishonest and / or utterly ignorant aspects of our national political discourse.

We are all frakking socialists.  The question is just to what degree, and what kind.

Chris Bowers :: USA closes in on wealthy nation public spending average

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
While Your Main Point Is Unassailable, Chris (4.00 / 2)
I still find the projected US convergence with other OECD nations unlikely.  For one thing, state and local governments are shedding jobs and spending like nobody's business, and there's increasing talk that this will be an irreversible change.

I called CAP over a week ago trying to get more information on this report, but the media person I talked to seems to have dropped the ball, so I called back & left a voicemail with one of the co-authors of this study.  So I hope to have more to say about this particular analysis & it's underlying data sometime soon.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


I wish someday Michelle Bachman becomes smart enough (4.00 / 1)
to realize what a moron she is. Right now, she appears to be blithely oblivious to this staggering truth. And, so long as she represents the vanguard of the teabag intellectual elite, we're ok.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Just brilliant wording (4.00 / 1)
"...the president signed the health care bill at the 11th hour in the morning on Tuesday..."

As a connoisseur of sleazy rhetoric, I love this.  "At the 11th hour" makes it sound like he snuck it in somehow.  And then she covers herself with "in the morning", so she's not wrong, she's just full of crap.


It´s politics - and it tends to work for them (0.00 / 0)
I'm touched by Chris's outrage: of course, Bachmann is 'bending, spindling and mulilating'!

At least since WW2, the various incarnations of Republicans have embraced Big Government while regularly persuading enough of the Great Unwashed to get elected that they loathe and despise it. (As Scott Brown in MA just a few months ago.)

If the Dems had had such an effective piece of inexhaustible contrafactuality in the last coupla decades, perhaps their electoral performance would have been better.

In terms of welfare, I suspect one would want to adjust the US number for the extraordinary overspend on healthcare and defense.

But the test is not: Is the GOP Big Government charge bollocks? (of course it is!); but, Can the Dems make any headway in undermining the GOP claim that it exists?  


Ask any American parent if they are willing to give up free education for their children. (4.00 / 2)
Of course, education is not free. We pay for it in accordance of our means (socialism). We just take so much for granted in this country.  

i don't think most people take things for granted as much as they're aware of the inequities of the system (0.00 / 0)
the way they express those feelings, however, is a different story.

just idle speculation - maybe i can be up for a chatty cathy award :)


[ Parent ]
Re: what conservatives want (4.00 / 1)
We saw Paul Ryan's budget.  They want a lot less than 35%.  Pretty much all they want is the military, police and justice system, fire department, and maybe a couple of faith-based initiatives to please the Religious Right.

Without defense and homeland security (4.00 / 1)
the U.S. starts to look very sad again. Our public spending is also inflated by too much spending on health care. Where we really fall short is in things like Social Security, disability insurance, and services for the poor.

the analysis in this post in poor (4.00 / 2)
when you look at polls, you like to average many polls.  but when you look at these numbers, which are more important to me - you use one source that isn't necessarily in agreement with others.  i will keep harping on this:

http://openleft.com/showCommen...

1. Which specific graphs did you get this data from?  It's hard to evaluate an argument like this without knowing more.
2. The data for 2008 to 2010 for state and local levels is 'guesstimated' by the site.  The method is not provided that I could see.
http://usgovernmentspending.bl...

3. Why is transportation included here?  I don't know what falls under this, but to me highway and construction are infrastructure, not part of the social safety net.

4. Spending is not equivalent to provision of a safety net, though it's useful that their data takes into accoutn federal, state, and local spending.  It would be interesting to hear from someone who would know how reliable the census figures are for state and local spending.  But that aside, one could make a reasonable argument that health insurance company profits should be deducted from this spending in terms of accounting for public spending.  And other examples as well.

The base question is to what extent a safety net is being provided, to whom, and how effective is it?  If you contrast the 1996 welfare reform with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, one could make the argument that this was a net loss in terms of social safety net provision because some of the most vulnerable people were cast off.  

So your argument could be right, could be wrong, but it's hard to tell from what's presented.  For example, how does it square up with this OECD data for 2001, which says the U.S. safety net is 8% of GDP, not 24%.  I don't know whether the the OECD hasn't included state and local spending or whether there is some cooking of the books going on in the way the data is assembled in the U.S. spending or simply a reflectino of different understandings of what a social safety net is by the two sources.

However, I'd caution against casually relying singly on the data of a site that is devote to highlighting that the U.S. government spends too much without looking more carefully at the issue.

also 'socialism' is not equivalent to 'state participation in a national economy.'   there are a lot of different understandings of socialism to be fair, but there has to be some core values that distinguish, say, 'national socialism / fascism' from 'state capitalism' from 'socialism.'  

but i think it's useful that you are reclaiming the word socialism from crazy people on the right and mainstreaming it.


Start a Petition »





Donate to Open Left


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search