Four times faster?
From 2000 to 2010, federal spending has increased 106% while prices (according to the Consumer Price Index) have only increased 26%. In other words, while the cost of stuff has risen only 26%, the government is spending roughly four times more than if it had increased spending to match increased costs.
To be sure, a few things have happened in the last ten years that have affected the increase in federal spending faster than consumer prices. There was 9/11 and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a recession, and there still is a recession. But even so, shouldn’t federal spending increases match consumer price increases, at least somewhat?
Right now, a lot of the debate over the size of the federal budget centers around “discretionary” versus “mandatory” spending. As one economist (Arnold Kling) points out, budget items in the later group aren’t so mandatory as they may seem.
The data indicate that it is not very difficult to increase Federal government spending, in spite of the large portion that is mandatory. Why not? Some hypotheses:
1. We tend to see discretionary increases in “mandatory” spending. As in the prescription drug benefit. Note that at the time the prescription drug benefit was enacted, nobody said, “You know, on the whole, the elderly are doing fine. We want to provide prescription drugs as an in-kind benefit, but maybe we should cut back on other transfers to the elderly in order to maintain generational balance.”
2. The government’s “cost of living” goes up much faster than the CPI. For example, with Medicare and Medicaid, outlays are tied to health care costs, and we all know that health care costs are rising faster than inflation.
Check out the rest of his analysis here. Noting that, with the exception of “net interest,” every major category in the federal budget has seen an increase in spending greater than the consumer price index, Kling argues that if we cut spending back to 2000 levels–without touching defense, Medicare, or Social Security—we could slash $500 billion from the federal budget.
That’s a healthy chunk of change, and a simple idea. Roll spending back to 2000 levels, and then start looking at entitlement reform for other budget constraints and deficit reduction.
Here’s his data:
Spending, in billions, vs. Consumer Price Index
|Spending Category||2000 level||2010 level||Percentage increase|
|Consumer Price Index||174||219||26 %|
|Total Federal Outlays||1789||3721||108 %|
|Income Security||254||686||170 %|
|Social Security||409||721||76 %|
|Net Interest||223||188||-16 %|
Get it? Prices have risen only 26%, and federal spending should have risen about the same, even accounting for defense, Social Security, and Medicare. But it hasn’t. Federal spending has increased far faster.
Kling puts in a last word:
Or maybe the answer to the paradox is that when it comes to the Federal Budget, spending is discretionary when somebody proposes an increase in its rate of growth but mandatory when somebody proposes a decrease in its rate of growth.
Are politicians really just “the slaves of some defunct economist“?
The Federal budget is a curious thing. It alone in the world of finance and spending–from individual home budgets, corporate coffers, Wall Street, and state budgets–is controlled by persons whose primary interest is not responsibility, but reelection, and who spend based on good ideas for benefits, not the realities of economics.
Few things secure reelection like bringing home the bacon or signing a revolutionary new program. Yet the law of unintended consequences is stronger than all the political clout or well-meaning programs in the world.
So it is: well-meaning Congressmen (and Congresswomen), Senators, and Presidents head off to the marbled halls of Washington, D.C. to make plans and pass laws that their constituents will love back home, solve society’s problems, and make world a better place.
Then, the plans hit the real world, and little do politicians know what results will really happen.
As I’ve quoted before, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
The road to hell, or rather, bottomless debt, is paved with good intentions. So, perhaps, is the road to Washington, no matter how little men “really know about what they imagine they can design.”
- Hocus + Pocus = The 2012 Federal Budget Plan (dailyfinance.com)
- Budget Numbers You Can Understand (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
- Federal Budget Cuts That Exempt 65% of Spending (outsidethebeltway.com)
- President Obama’s Budget – Debt to Me (redstate.com)
- President Obama defends federal budget full of ‘tough choices’ (pennlive.com)
- Deja Vu on the Federal Budget (pinkbananaworld.com)
- The answer to why Americans are OK with more spending (lawafterthebar.wordpress.com)