I was almost shocked to read a "fair and balanced" editorial in today's WSJ about the sleeping beast that is the federal deficit. The WSJ points out, correctly, that the real problem is spending, especially by this president and the GOP Congress which the WSJ describes as "drunken spending sailors."
The following table appears in the editorial (I added the party affiliation and the average growth calculations below the table):
Average annual real increases in domestic discretionary spending
President Fiscal Years %Increase Party
Lyndon Johnson 1965-69 4.30% D
Jimmy Carter 1978-81 2.00% D
Bill Clinton 1994-01 2.50% D
Richard Nixon 1970-75 6.80% R
Gerald Ford 1976-77 8.00% R
Ronald Reagan 1982-89 -1.30% R
George H.W. Bush 1990-93 4.00% R
George W. Bush 2002-04 8.20% R
Average Annual Spending Increase under Dems 2.93%
Average Annual Spending Increase under GOP 5.14%
% Difference 75%
Source: WSJ Editorial Page, January 20, 2004. Calculation of average by political party done by KopeKid.
What the WSJ doesn't point out is that Republican administrations have grown domestic, discretionary spending at a rate that is 75% higher than Democratic administrations.
You could argue that, before 1994, Republican administrations can't be blamed for spending levels since they weren't in control of Congress. If that's true, then why do the Democratic Administrations listed all have cost growth rates lower than the Republican average?
Note: If you calculated the average rate of growth as a weighted average (i.e., equivalent to listing every year's growth rate since 1965 and dividing by the total number of years), Republican administrations still significantly outgrew Democratic Administrations 3.8% vs. 2.9%.
This should put finally to rest the myth of the "tax and spend" liberal Democrat vs. the fiscally responsible Republican.