Bush sparsam istället?

Bloggen Truck and Barter menar att de siffror som Reason presenterade om fem presidenters budgetar inte stämmer. Som ni kan läsa nedan så menade Reason att Bush ökat utgifterna med 35 procent när det i själva verket är, enligt Truck and Barter, ett plus på 0,6 procent. Så här ser de respektive siffrorna ut:

1. Bush: +35.2%
2. LBJ: +25.2%
3. Reagan: +11.9%
4. Nixon: -16.5%
5. Clinton: -8.2%

Truck and Barter
1. Nixon: +2.5%
2. LBJ: +1.4%
3. Bush: +0.6%
4. Reagan: -0.8%
5. Clinton: -0.9%

Jag är inte ekonom så jag kan inte bedöma hur trovärdiga de respektive siffrorna är, men intressant är att notera att båda kommer fram till att Bill Clinton är den som minskat utgifterna mest.

Värt att notera är att jag flera gånger läst i the Economist om Bushs stora spenderande och de brukar inte vräka ur sig saker bara.

4 kommentarer:

Mikke sa...

I undestood that the lower numbers for Bush, was when the growth was compared to the growth of GNP. I kind of liked the comment someone did, that the Government spending should not be linearly related to the GNP. That's why the higher number sounds like a more accurate measurement.

A bigger issue right now in media over here, is the value of all the spending. It looks like there's a lot of pork in the spending bills, with questionable improvements for the people on the street. If the Bush administration is taking a chance in handing out some gifts to their big-corporate friends, without looking at what's best for Luisiana and other areas that need the government support, then it's really bad.

Mathias Sundin sa...

Ah okej. Det låter vettigt, men som sagt, jag är ingen ekonom.

Just om för mycket "pork" i bl a infrastruktursatsningar har jag läst en del om, och också skrivit lite. Bla om ett par broar i Alaska, där en går till ett ställe där ingen bor.

Anonym sa...

1. With your logic Sweden is more rightwing than the US, I mean we have lower absolute spending no?

When wages go up costs go up. Wages go up with GDP. Most of US (and Sweden) spending, such as Social Security, is directly connected to growth by index.

2. "Clinton" did NOT reduce goverment spending, goverment spending went down during Clinton.

The reason is that the fall in international intress rates and US inflation reduces spending on intres rates from 3% to 2% (this came the first 5 years when Clinton was running a deficit)

Also because of technological boom costs for unemplyment benefits went down.

Can you name any other program Clinton cut, except Welfare that Newt Ginrich forced on him? No? How can you keep saying he cut goverment?

Anonym sa...


The Economist is strongly anti-Bush and as an economist I can tell you they have A LOT of factuall errors or misleading figures.

The figures of spending used on truckandbarter are undisputable, would you rather belive the US budget office or the Economist?