Quick: If I were to ask you which president in the last 40 years has grown government spending and regulation the most, what would your answer be?
Carter? Nope.
Clinton? Wrong again.
Obama? Well, we'll see.
So far, though, it's our own George W. Bush. Yes, you read that right, the last administration grew government spending and regulation by more than any administration since Nixon.
According to an article over at reason.com, "the Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent."
By contrast, Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001.
As the reason.com folks point out, it takes a lot of bureaucrats to create and enforce all those regulations. According to the article, Bush increased the federal government's regulatory staff by 91,196 employees.
You can read the entire article here. It's definitely food for thought. (h/t to Trey Garrison)
• The Bolts in 2010? Maybe so.
• Scurry man indicted for murder.
• A Terrell, Texas tie to the story in the Austin American Statesman about the security at the Capitol.
• BP chief sold shares weeks before spill.
• A well read newspaper? Same prop newspaper makes appearance in several films.
• I understand that Kaufman County CrimeStoppers has handed out its first payout. I'm working on the story for Thursday's Tribune.
• Today's earworm is from Schuyler Fisk. I heard the song the other day and really like it. Apparently, Ms. Fisk has a fairly famous momma as well.
That's why fiscal conservatives were about as happy as anyone else to see W. out the door. Unfortunately President Obama is just as big a spender, even if it is in different directions.
ReplyDeleteThere was a time that Europe followed American trends, now it is the opposite and to our detriment.
Just my $.02
Michael,
ReplyDeleteDid we publish a story back in the day about Ben Campbell working in Betty Brown's office? I seem to think we did, but I can't recall...
Ms. de Rugy's article doesn't make the claim you attribute to it. It says, not that Bush "has grown government spending and regulation the most," but that he grew federal regulatory spending--and raw pages of regulation--the most (in the last 40 years). (Regulatory spending is only a tiny fraction of total government spending.)
ReplyDeleteThat said, Ms. de Rugy's piece is typically shoddy. She gives no overview of the regulations added, or the layout of the costs accrued, and instead cherry-picks examples of what she thinks of as silly-sounding regulations like confiscation of lighters at airport security checks--because, I mean, how could a lighter be dangerous in a flying plastic box filled with synthetic fibers at 40,000 feet?!
In the real world, of course, details matter. It makes a difference whether budgeted costs go toward, say, effective expert assessment and regulation of current practices, or exotic vacations, internal promotion of unqualified college buddies, or other cozy relations with the very industry officials one is charged with regulating. This also happened on Bush's watch, and is perhaps more revealing than a blanket comparison of two raw figures in the absence of any extra detail: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/11/usa.oil
Let me also give credit where credit is due. Mr. Linebarger's recent editorial on the shameful recent performance of the SBOE was quite thoughtful without being either preachy or unnecessarily provocative. Nice job.
ReplyDeleteGood points ACO.
ReplyDelete