Re: "Well this seems like a silly analysis, given that it doesn't even take account the parties of the House and Senete"
It is certainly fair to point-out that Presidents are, in no way, the only factor in American governance that can affect budget and spending policies! (Of course, I *never made* any such claim and I didn't really *give* an "analysis". :-)
What I wrote was more like just a tentative suggestion or two for what MIGHT be responsible for the observed trend in the data series.
But those tentative suggestions surely don't rise to the level of any exhaustive "explanation" for the data. Obviously, the suggestions could play some small part, or no part in answering the question of "Why does this pattern exist in the data".
There could well be completely different explanations for "Why" the real federal debt seems to have soared under the last 20 years of GOP Presidents... (while declining under most of the Dem and other GOP Presidents of the balance of that 50 year period.)
However... your comment about Congress was spot-on. That factor would need to be a consideration too.
(Although, since you've brought it up, I will say that BOTH Congress AND the President share responsibility for federal spending and the federal deficit... because - although it's true that Congress must pass spending legislation - it is also true that the President is the one who starts the process out by proposing a budget that he'd like to see, and - most of the time - it is the President who ENDS the process by either signing and authorizing the spending, or else VETOING it and starting the process out anew.)
But I did not mean to imply that all blame or credit for deficits or for paying down deficits belonged to the President in charge at the time. (Just that some part of it does....)
I was simply trying to point out what is becoming (IMO) an interesting historical fact.
The last 50 years of history may, (or may not), be a long enough period of time to draw a valid statistical inference (about human actions) from... but, if it's not yet long enough to mean much statistically, it's at least a long enough trend to *attract attention*. <GGG>
MANY different suggestions could be put forward to try to explain why the federal deficits have risen so fast during recent Republican Presidents...
1) It could simply not be a "Republican" thing at all... perhaps it's just a REALLY bad run of economically big spending GOP Presidents?
(Really... if you just take the last 20 years of GOP Presidents --- Bush II, Bush I, Reagan --- out of the 50 years of data you don't see any clear trend like that at all any more.)
Perhaps just 'unlucky' enough to have THREE budget-busting GOP Presidents in a row? Look at the numbers in the earlier post... perhaps simply a run of bad luck explains it?
2) Another idea: Middle Class-friendly policies.
It has been argued by many economists that the times in the 20th. Century when the American economy GREW THE FASTEST... produced the MOST WEALTH, was when the Middle Class was expanding the fastest.
They have even given the major period for this (after WW II) a name to describe it: "The American Miracle".
It describes the time when - quite unique for the world - America lead the way into a new type of social economy... one where the largest numbers of people were economically in the MIDDLE (up to 60 to 80% of the whole population), with far fewer really really poor people or really really rich at the top.
This was a very new thing in the world. The 'old way' (seen in Europe for centuries, and in Asia, etc.) was to have mostly poor people... and with a few very rich on the top and relatively FEW people in the middle. Always it was the rich driving the policies, and the poor and middle groups relatively powerless.
When the "American Miracle" came along (since copied all over the world), more poor people became Middle Class, and the Middle Class became the largest economic group.
It is said that a "rising tide lifts ALL boats", and I believe that this may be the case here.
And EXPANDING, prospering large Middle Class means that wages are also rising, and the entire economy is growing at a faster rate. ("Consumerism" arrives. Home ownership arises. :-) This interesting historical quirk we are exploring about deficits being PAID down under Democrat Presidents (and soaring under Republican Presidents) may simply be an ARTIFACT. An AFTER-EFFECT of the main thing that is going on:
If policies are followed that are GOOD for the Middle Class (and the poor wanting to become middle class...), then the entire economy GROWS at a FASTER RATE.
The 'rising tide' lifts ALL BOATS.
The Middle Class becomes rich, the rich become richer, and the poor become less poor.
One other interesting thing happens when the economy is growing faster (and sustainably faster like that when the Middle Class is doing well and wages are rising, incomes are rising: the GOVERNMENT, over time, takes inn MORE REVENUE from taxes when the economy is doing better.
It could be that that is "all" that is going on:
The "Trickle Down" theory of economics (tax cuts benefiting the rich a bit more) that we heard so much about over the past couple of decades probably "works" (after all... cutting ANY TAXES probably raises economic growth some...)
It's just that "TRICKLE UP" works even better!
(And that may be why federal deficits went down when more 'Middle Class-friendly" policies were followed under Dem Presidents... and "Trickle Down" policies implemented under Reagan and Bush and Bush II.
That's a theory, anyway, that: "Trickle Down works... it just that Trickle UP works EVEN BETTER." |
