Skip to main content

Tax-and-spend Liberal My Ass

This is a continuation of my earlier posts on economic performance of democratic and republican administrations. My earlier posts include:
Politics of the Federal Minimum Wage

Democrats Have Kept Unemployment Low

Democrats care about poor people

Truth About Economic Performance of Political Parties

I like to think I have shed light on some facts and debunked some conventional wisdom. In this post, I will attempt to examine the tax-and-spend liberal label put on democrats.

Republicans often try to label democrats as tax-and-spend liberals who are soft on national security. While the latter point is based on anecdotal evidence, the earlier is amenable to empirical examination. So, I set out to prove or disprove the notion that democrats often tax and spend in a way that does not yield economic growth.

The implication of tax-and-spend liberal is one that puts excessive tax burden on its population and finds inefficient (think socialistic) ways of spending that tax revenue. If the tax revenue is not spent in ways that promote economic growth the tax revenue base would ultimately shrink and lead to large government debt. With that understanding, I compiled some found some useful data I would play with to teach certain conclusions. The all-knowing Wikipedia was obviously my first source. Under "National Debt by US Presidential Terms", I found data on US spending, debt and GDP growth from 1978 - 2008.

Geopolitical circumstances, natural disasters and control of congress not withstanding, it would be fair to compare the performance of presidents in terms of how they managed the US economy. Here is a table to get us started.


Average Revenue
(% of GDP)
Average Spending
(% of GDP)
Average Annual Debt
(% of GDP)
Average Annual
GDP Growth
Democrat
19.52
20.08
0.67
3.03
Republican
17.79
21.43
3.64
2.60

The questions I want answer in particular are:

1) Taxation - Do democratic presidents tax more heavily than their republican counterparts?

The answer is yes. Since 1978, tax revenue as a % of GDP in 12 years of democratic presidents is 19.52%, compared to 17.79% under 18 years of republican presidents. Both the revenue and GDP are adjusted for inflation in 2000 dollars.

2) Spending - Do democratic spend more than their republican counterparts?

No, they don't! Despite collecting less tax revenue, the republicans spending is 21.43% of GDP, in contrast to 20.08% for democrats. This is a surprising finding because one would think the party that collects more tax revenue would have a higher spending, but the opposite is true. Unfortunately, this means republicans pile the sizable difference between their tax revenue and spending on the federal debt.

3) Debt - Do democratic presidents put the country in debt more than their republican counterparts?

Absolutely not. Unbelievably, debt as a % of GDP averages 3.64% under republican presidents in contrast to 0.67% under democratic presidents. This is largely because tax revenues are low and spending is high during republican administrations. On the other hand, democratic administrations keep fairly balanced budgets.

In fact, I went ahead and plotted some data on the annual federal budget deficit since 1978 and it is pretty obvious republicans have singlehandedly ballooned the federal budget deficit.

4) Economic Growth - Do democratic presidents' tax policies hind economic growth compared to their republican analogs?

Certainly not. Average annual GDP growth under democratic presidents has been 3.03%. With a republican president ruling, it is only 2.64%.

===

My quick and dirty study finds that the notion of a tax-and-spend liberal is a giant myth. Economic and tax policies under democratic presidents have been much more responsible than during republican administrations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Distribution of Wealth in the US

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I heard this statement quite a bit lately particularly in light of the sub-prime mortgage and general housing crisis in the US. The country has enjoyed significant economic prosperity and both Clinton and Bush boasted economic growth under their reign. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of the economic boom are not people from all economic backgrounds, but rather the top 10%. To make things worse, Bush gave tax cuts mainly targeting the top 10%. Being more of a numbers guy, I always wanted showing the validity of the-rich-get-richer-n-the-poor-get-poorer statement. Thanks to Wikipedia , I have finally found it!! Both the mean and median net worth of families for the bottom 50% of the population has remained absolutely flat while the 75th-90th percentile see a decent growth and the top 10% enjoy the most appreciation on their net worth. So, if you factor in inflation, the-rich-get-richer-n-the-poor-get-poorer probably holds true. The g...

IPtables, SVN, and NMAP

I reviewed some material on IPtables, SVN, and NMAP just for the sake of keeping my mind busy. Here are some useful notes: IPtables - best resource found at HERE SVN - best, as in the quickest and simplest intro could be found HERE NMAP - I honestly don't see in using it for more than port-scanning in a few instances. Anyway, here are a few other options that might come in handy at some point. nmap -sT/sS/ sX/sF/...[-P0] IPADDRESS(range) == to check which ports are open nmap -sP IPADDRESS(range) == a simple ping scan for availability nmap -sO IPADDRESS(range) == check what IP protocols are available nmap -sV IPADDRESS(range) == a scan with version detection Other useful flags: -O == detects OS, part of -v (verbosity) flag as well -A == detects OS and versions -v == request high verbosity/detail -F == performs a fast scan of only a few common ports Installing Perl modules Perl modules may be installed using the CPAN module or from source. SOURCE...

Reasons to Vote for Barack Obama

Not that I am eligible to vote or anything ... but if I could, I would vote for Barack Obama for the following reasons. He listens to experts . He has assembled a group of smart and practical intellectuals to advise him on all sorts of topics. Hillary has her own agenda and ambition which appears to keep her from entertaining any "elitist" agenda. He is a good manager. The way he hired very intelligent people to run a nearly flawless campaign to beat an established and seemingly unbeatable opponent in Hillary Clinton is commendable. He really knows how to surround himself with a smart group of people who can get things done and that is exactly what this country needs. Hillary hired people on the basis of their loyalty and counted on friends of the Clintons to win her the nomination. Unfortunately, all that influence and political capital could not overcome the grassroots movement Obama initiated. He is not an ideologue . That allows him to make good decisions for this...