We're All Socialist

A Comparison of Public Spending

from JoeUser Forums
Public spending is the most quanitfiable and useful method of determining how active governments are. The chart below compares public spending (federal, state, and local spending) for 2002. Canada is at 40.1%, USA is at 35.3%, Australia is a little higher than USA while UK is a little higher than Canada. The standard deviation is ~8; the difference between Canada and USA falls within that range.







More recent figures and historical trends suggest the gap betwen Canada and the USA has lessened since 2002; Canada's spending is trending downward from a high of 53.3% in 1992 to 2004's 40.1%, and a projection below the 40% threshold for 2005. The Clinton years saw spending drop from 38.1% of GDP in 1992 to a historical low of 33.7% upon leaving the Whitehouse. Bush's presidency has seen a 2% increase in public spending and is trending upward. The chart below shows the most up to date figures on public spending:







Source: OECD.



Link
politics
348 views 7 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
David~I just gave you an insightful rating on this one, and I am no big fan of statistics. However, this was a bit too impressive to ignore. I hope many more JU bloggers will take a peek at this one. Keep on blogging!



~MadPoet
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the US would be about 5% lower relative to other nations if defense spending wasn't included. Do most of the nations on this list spend 15-20% of their GDP on their military?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: Madine - 7/14/2004 1:23:06 PM
I think the US would be about 5% lower relative to other nations if defense spending wasn't included. Do most of the nations on this list spend 15-20% of their GDP on their military?


Yes, the USA spends a lot on military, 5% by GDP and 20% of the federal budget.. Military spending, defined narrowly and not including veteran spending, Homeland Security, and one time charges like Iraq and Afghanistan, has shot up around 30% in Bush's tenure, and not coincidentally the deficit (tomorrow's taxes) has exploded in tandem.

I wrote an article on what you are suggesting: that American taxes would be lower were it not for the Military Industrial Complex (Some might say Imperialist) Tax that is 'Defense' spending. You ask if most countries have 20% military expenditures and I'd say most countries don't have 702 overseas military bases in 130 countries and haven't invaded over 50 nations since WWII. As Chalmers Johnson has noted: "As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize -- or do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. " Link

And it's not like America needs to be spending this much. Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex when he left office, it's no conspiracy theory. Bush could cut military spending by $100 billion and still be spending 5 times what anyone else is spending. That $100 billion is better off in the pockets of Americans (some might say better spent on universal healthcare, but not me), not in the pockets of Haliburton and other connected firms that got untendered contracts worth as much as $18 billion that have since proven to be fraud ridden. Also, much of the increase in military spending has come from increased R&D, not one time charges relating to the war on terror.

It may be a tad inaccurate but not incorrect to blame runaway military spending for suboptimal tax rates . Bush is a profligate spender across the board. From the Washington Post: "Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels. "
"The most interesting thing is Bush has not vetoed anything, let alone a spending program," Penner said. "One wonders how serious the White House is about holding the line."
Stan Collender, a federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard Inc., said: "This is an administration that cannot possibly take up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It's probably the least fiscally conservative in history."

Pretty Charts:

This one shows the sharp increase in defense (Not Iraq, not veterans or HSO) spending under Bush's watch:



This one shows how R&D spending has increased faster than procurement, for example.



Source:
The Long-Term Implications of
Current Defense Plans:
Detailed Update for Fiscal Year 2004
Congressional Budget Office
February 2004
Link
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I find the derived fact that our federal budget is 1/4 of our GDP disturbing.

(Military spending = 5% GDP = 20% Federal. Simply multiply by 5 to find that 25% GDP = 100% Federal.)