Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (25643)	8/16/2003 5:43:56 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

I'm always amazed how Reagan is mythologized. For example, how he was a fiscal conservative and it was the spendthrift Congress, i.e., Democrats who caused all the problems. Reagan's first budget proposed spending of 695 billion, 745 billion was allocated. His last budget proposed spending of 1,094 billion, 1,144 was allocated. 1. In these 8 years, the President's proposed budget increased every year by a compounded annual growth rate of 6.7% (1094/ (1+.067)^7). (Not much discipline there) 1. In these 8 years, the ACTUAL allocated spending increased every year by a compounded annual growth rate of 6.3% (1144/ (1+.063)^7). The democratic controlled Congress' rate of growth on actual spending was LESS than the Reagan's proposed rate of growth. Finally, compare Reagan's first request of $645 billion as the starting point using an end point of the 1989 appropriated funds results in a compounded annual growth rate of 7.4% (1144/(1+.074)^7). 7.4% - 6.7% results in a variance of only 0.7% in compounded annual growth between the first Reagan proposed budget and the last actual Congressional allocation. So you can say that (a) the rate in growth in spending was actually less by Congress than by Reagan (6.3% versus 6.7%) or (b) starting from Reagan's first proposal to Congress compounded annual spending was 0.7% ( 7 tenths of 1%) more than Reagan proposed (7.4%-6.7%) Even if you wish to emphasize the latter point, a 0.7% variance in compounded annual growth rate over 8 years between a proposed budgets and actual expenditures would probably be better than practically any company you could find. Regardless, 7% compounded annual growth rate is too high, even if you subtract out the non-inflation adjusted compounded annual growth in GDP. However, defense spending went from 156 billion in 1981 to 303 billion in 1989, a 10% compounded annual growth rate. There's most of the it. ww