Although I do not attempt to explore this question here, I will deal with a related issue. That is examine the presidential priorities as revealed in the patterns of spending the Federal budget. I will focus my analysis on the volume of Federal government expenditures under each U.S. president going back to the beginning of the Second World War in 1940.
Federal Spending Always Increases...No Surprise
Let's start with total spending by the Federal government, illustrated by the blue line in the chart to the right. The vertical lines reflect each successive president whose name is identified at the top. In a couple of cases I have combined two presidents and treat them as one, Kennedy/Johnson and Nixon/Ford, since the second president of the pair came to office by accident and more or less followed the policies of the rightfully elected preceding president (although Johnson won a rightful term on his own and may have gone much farther than Kennedy ever intended or even thought of going). Also, the breaks denoted by the vertical lines are placed one year after each individual takes office- I did this because for all practical purposes Federal spending during the first few months of a new president's term, perhaps up to a year, has been determined to a great extent by the budget adopted by the previous president. Finally, the numbers in the chart underneath each president's name reflect the difference in spending between the first and the last year of each president's term in office.A quick inspection of the chart clearly reveals that spending by the Federal government increases steadily year after year, regardless of who is in office. The only periods where we spot a decline are those following a period of excessive spending resulting from a war (WWII in the 1940s, Korean war in the 1950s, and the Afghanistan/Irak wars in the early 2000s.) Thus, one thing we can be sure of is that Federal spending will continue to increase. Moreover, the increase in spending incurred by each successive president is higher than that of the previous office holder. In only two instances we can see a smaller increase; one is during Bush I (Bush Papa) when the $238 billion increase in spending at the end of his term was smaller than the previous president's (Reagan)- but Bush I was in office only four years, compared to Reagan's eight years. The second one is under Obama, whose increase in the rate of spending is less than his predecessor's because Bush II courageously or foolishly, take your pick, engaged in two wars, in Afghanistan and Irak. Although, as we will see below, defense spending under Obama is still double what it was at the beginning of the Bush II term.
The Change in Spending Always Increases Too
An alternative way of viewing this trend in Federal spending is to look at the change in spending relative to total Federal spending, that is, as a percentage of total Federal spending for the final year. For instance, Reagan's change in spending is almost 75% higher than his predecessor's, that is Carter; but in relative terms we can see that both are very close as percentages of total spending\- 69% for Reagan versus 66% for Carter. Similarly, we can see that Bush II's increase of nearly $1.7 trillion dwarfs the spending of all other presidents. However, this huge increase becomes in relative terms second to the spending committed by Nixon/Ford- 89% for Bush II against 125% for the Nixon/Ford duo. Note that by insisting on a relative comparison I am not suggesting that we should accept those large increases laying down.Does Spending Reveal the Priorities of Presidents?
Aside from the overall increase in spending, that every president achieves regardless of party or political tendencies, we can get a clearer view of the presidents tendencies and preferences by analyzing the way they allocate funds among the various departments or functions.
We can see how increases in Defense spending loom large for many presidents; Truman and the Korean war, JFK/LBJ for the Vietnam war, Carter flip-flopping on defense (he started cutting defense spending but towards the end of his term he actually increased it.) Also Reagan and the successful military build-up that drove the Soviet Union out of business, although in some quarters there is nostalgia for that system (Bernie Sanders?), and Bush II for the misguided wars. We can also can see how Social Security spending increases are top, or near the top, for most periods. And, as we will see below, they will continue to demand more and more increases in Federal spending as the baby boomers retire in droves.
Medicare is another function that is requiring greater spending every year, unless congress opts for modifying the law, something that is not politically palatable.
Changes in Priorities Over Time
The priorities and plans of an incoming president are normally altered by practical circumstances or unforeseen geopolitical world events. Although in the end Presidents may be able to attain and meet their plans. The bars on each of the nine graphs in the chart at the right, representing the spending shares for every president since FDR, provide a visual image of these shifting priorities. The bar with a percentage number simply identifies the period when that particular function peaked as a share of total federal spending. But we must be careful not to be fooled by these charts and conclude, for instance, that defense spending has declined. Its share of total spending has fallen but, as shown below spending for national defense (some think of it as spending for intrusion into other countries affairs) has increased sharply. One thing is clear though, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Health (that includes Medicaid) has been increasing, and will continue to do so, because of legal committments. The first two primarily to aging population that will increase rapidly over the next few years as the baby boomers retire.The Relentless Increase in Defense Spending
The chart to the right displays defense spending back to 1940. We can see that in only three presidential terms spending for defense fell, but only temporarily: under Truman, Clinton and Obama. But even in these cases, we can see that spending began to increase towards the end of their presidential term. In the case of Truman the rise was driven by the military reaction to North Korea's invasion of the South Korea. Clinton, who began requesting smaller defense budgets, but reversed course in the middle of his term responding to a number of trouble spots around the world (Somalia, Bosnia, etc.), with his defense spending at the end of his term virtually identical to where he started. Finally, Obama reduced defense spending by removing all forces from Irak and lessening our involvement in Afghanistan, but has increased the budget in the last two years in response to Russia's and Isis' threats (an argument can be said that the first is the result of the famous "reset" with Russia at the beginning of his term, and the second caused by the abandoning Irak without support.)Mandatory and Discretionary Spending
But something has been happening over the years. As Congress approves more and more laws and regulations that guarantee benefits to segments of the U.S. population, a greater portion of the budget falls into the so-called "mandatory" spending. That is, spending that the Federal government is committed unless Congress specifically obviates it by law- and this hardly every happens. So we see that a really big chunk of the budget, slightly over 70% today, is out of the discretion of the President, he has to spend the funds by the force of law. The chart clearly shows the rise in mandatory spending over the last 50 years or so. The only way that Congress can increase discretionary spending is by changing existing laws, raising taxes further or simply incurring additional debt. The latter is the normally preferred method since it shifts the burden to future taxpayer generations who can't complain about the burden.What Do We Make of This?
First of all, this analysis confirms and provides factual evidence to what we already knew, that no matter what the political leanings or beliefs of the candidate, spending during his term will increase. Spending rose even under Reagan, the 'government is the problem' president. Yes, you will say, but it was for a good purpose, to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. And indeed that was a good motive; the problem is that there is always a good motive to justify more spending.
Secondly, the larger mandatory spending as a share of total spending increases the likelihood that Congress and the President will simply resort to more debt to fund additional programs. Raising taxes, the more correct alternative because current beneficiaries should carry the burden, is harder to implement because of the re-election consequences for congressmen.
