Big Government Under the Bush Administration PDF Print E-mail
Written by Richard M. Ebeling   
Sunday, 16 November 2008 00:00

During the recent presidential campaign, a persistent question was whether the election of the Democratic candidate threatened a major growth in government spending. As a benchmark for future comparison, it is worthwhile to take a look at by how much the federal government has grown over the last eight years under the Bush Administration.

When President George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the federal government had total revenues of slightly more than $2.03 trillion and expenditures of $1.79 trillion, leaving a budget surplus of slightly less than $240 billion.

The following graph traces the growth in federal government tax receipts and expenditures and resulting surpluses or deficits over the last eight years.

Federal Government Budget

Source: The 2008 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Census Bureau

Since 2000, government spending has increased by more than 55 percent. Even when adjusted for inflation in constant (2000) dollars, federal expenditures have risen by just short of 29 percent. During this same period, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has only increased by 17.3 percent. Thus, over the last eight years real government spending has gone up nearly twice as fast as the actual U.S. economy.

When the Clinton Administration left the White House, federal spending was 18.4 percent of GDP. In 2008, at the close of the Bush Administration, federal expenditure is 20.5 percent of GDP, for an 11.4 percent increase over the last eight years. 

Washington has run deficits almost every year during the Bush Administration. Total federal debt has doubled and has risen from 58 percent to 66 percent of GDP, for a 14 percent increase in U.S. taxpayers’ debt burden in terms of GDP. 

Where has all this additional spending gone? The table below shows the growth in government spending from 2000 to 2007 by general types and categories in constant dollars. (It is not a full and comprehensive list.)

  Federal Government Constant (2000) Dollar Outlays, 2000-2007 by General Type and Category
  (Billions of Dollars)
 20002007% Increase
National Defense294.4475.1
61
Non-Defense Total*1,4951837.1
23
    Payment for Individuals
1054.61397.1

32

        Social Security and Railroad Retirement410.5487.719
        Federal Employees Retirement and Insurance100.3116.0
16
        Unemployment Insurance21.127.128
        Medical Care362.7559.9
54
        Student Assistance10.924.9
129
        Housing Assistance24.127.0
12
        Food and Nutrition Assistance32.446.3
43
        Public Assistance and Related Programs88.3103.417
        Other Transfers to Individuals4.34.7
10
 *Items also include All Other Grants, Net Interest, Off-budget amounts, and Undistributed offsetting receipt.

Source: The 2008 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Census Bureau

By any measure, there has been an explosion in government spending in both the defense and non-defense categories. Not surprisingly with the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, defense spending has risen during the Bush Administration by 61 percent in constant dollars. 

But “big government” domestic expenditures also have gotten a lot bigger during the presidency of George W. Bush. Welfare state spending has increased by 32 percent in constant dollars from what it was at the end of the Clinton Administration. 

Medical Care expenditures by the federal government (which includes Medicare, Medicaid, hospital and medical care for veterans, substance abuse and mental health services) has gone up by 54 percent in constant dollars under the current Republican administration. 

Not far behind, Food and Nutrition Assistance (which includes food stamps, child nutrition, and special milk programs, supplemental food programs) has increased 43 percent since 2000. 

Social Security and related payments have risen by 19 percent. Public Assistance (which includes family support payments to states, low income home energy assistance, earned income tax credits, legal services, payments to states for daycare assistance, payments to states for foster care/adoption assistance, and other related services) have gone up 17 percent. Housing assistance has increased by 12 percent. Federal student loans and related programs have increased by 129 percent. 

The incoming Obama administration will have to work very hard if it wants to exceed the Bush administration in growing the welfare state during its term in office.

Bookmark this article:

Deli.cio.us    Digg    reddit    Facebook    StumbleUpon    Newsvine
 
Comments (9)
Balanced Budget?
9 Thursday, 26 February 2009 22:59
Melody
Good article with some hard numbers, we will assume accurate. I also just read a very lengthy article on the Reagan years, which I lived, but wanted some details refreshed in my mind. He was ALL about big government, no regulation, tax cuts for the rich, nothing for the lowly 10%, etc., etc. And he was in the pocket of the TERRORISTS.

So this goes way back and yet by his charm alone (he wasn't intellectually smart), he almost made the history books like a Prince Charming of Politics and GOP supporters still refer to him as the greatest American President. G.W. carried on Reaganomics in full detail, now look at us.

I think hardcore supporters of that party need some Starbucks brew. Here are the facts I look at:

Since 1980, there have been THREE Republican Presidents, serving a total of 20 years. Excluding the current President who JUST took office so has no history yet to reflect upon, Democrats had ONE President for eight years. The economy saw MUCH better health and fiscal numbers by the end of that 8-year run than any others. In fact, the other 20 years were fiscally disastrous, with the last eight being financial DEATH on a global scale.
Actually...
8 Thursday, 22 January 2009 10:28
A. Krueger
I'm not sure about the Spend teh money on teh boozes and teh Cig's. So, If I offended anyone, with that previous comment, I'm sorry for it.
Hmm...
7 Thursday, 22 January 2009 10:26
A. Krueger
Ok, then, we all know that the horror GWB and his cabinet have caused is unacceptable, but why, oh why, did he even decide to go into office when he knew he was going to have our country have a turn for the worst? Maybe the Terrorists were just making payback because Bush maybe said something to them that made them mad and wanted Bush to feel a fiery pain. Hey, It's a theory, but it might be accurate.

BTW, Obama currently has a lot to clean up after the mess Bush caused. Maybe if bush wasn't in office, things wouldn't be so bad. I mean, we got an inflation, AND a recession going at the same time. You cannot say that the pain Bush caused "Wasn't So Bad". I mean, it's all Bail the stocks! Make innocent people die by no armor! fight the people that didn't do anything to us! Money, money, spend it all on beer and cigarettes and raise taxes for the better of the government because our government needs all of the level 5 economic wants! Cars, Uranium, Blah Blah Blah! But, hey, he did give us a tax break! ONE FRIKKIN TAX BREAK. Wow, that's gonna give us, what? $2? $1? 50 cents? Actually, I don't know how big the tax break was, I was at school. I WAS at school.

So, the BA screwed us over, and be glad a democrat came along.
End of lecture.
Thank You
6 Tuesday, 23 December 2008 20:49
Writer to the World
I've used this article as a source for an article of my own. Your organization is a much needed asset to democracy. Please keep up the good work, because without you, power can tell us anything at all and get away with it.
AIER as a non-partisan institute.
5 Tuesday, 02 December 2008 14:47
Jeffrey L. Porrello
I was glad to see Mr. Ebeling's article for the truth it laid bare. I once, quite recently, accused AIER of having a conservative bias because of the "The Global Warming Debate: Science, Economics and Policy" DVD, but the above article reaffirms my belief that I can in fact get honest views from a factual standpoint. Yes, "W" is the worst president this country has ever had to bear. Lets give Mr. Obama a chance before we start accusing him of outspending "W" as A. Alizo does below. I believe if we can get enough of the obstructionist far-right republicans (like "The Firewall", Saxby Chambliss - US Senator for Georgia) out of the way, we may actually be able to get this country back to some semblance of sanity and regain respect from the outside world!
Bush is a sorry excuse for a Republican!
4 Thursday, 20 November 2008 22:54
A. Alizo
Yes, it's certainly true that Bush has been one of the WORST US PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY. And I say this as a former Republican, and now Libertarian that voted for Ron Paul. "W" is a BIG Government politician of the worst kind. Besides destroying the Republican party, his most durable legacy may be that of putting in power a leftist Democratic administration that will finish the job he started: that of spending the US into oblivion and "Banana Republic" status. Thanks Georgie!
Balanced budget
3 Wednesday, 19 November 2008 09:04
C.W. Krimmel
I am surprised you use such partisan arguments. You do not note that Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with that had made a commitment to a balanced budget. Nor do you point out that Bush faced numerous disasters, including 9-11 and Katrina. The Democrats also pushed costly Farm subsidies and other Big Government solutions.
Balanced Budget
2 Wednesday, 19 November 2008 00:08
Bob Alterman
Paul Meyer has a good point. Without the Social Security "surplus" being diverted to the general fund by the crooked politicians, what would the federal income, outgo and deficit curves look like?
Balanced Budget?
1 Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:42
Paul K Meyer
I would love to see the income and expense numbers with Social Security shown excluded from both.
One chart for SS alone and another for the rest of federal income and spending.
I would like to see these numbers of 25 or 30 years.
Then we could truly see if we had a "balanced budget" and what we might have to do to get there as a country.
As disturbing as your charts are now the new ones would be a lot scarier.

Add your comment

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:
  The word for verification. Lowercase letters only with no spaces.
Word verification: