tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30213905.post555460179837313691..comments2023-12-23T03:16:36.014-05:00Comments on Robert Hansen's Blog: Just for the record: Federal spendingRobert G. Hansenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08922339441309144396noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30213905.post-5784017041279318322013-02-14T16:47:28.594-05:002013-02-14T16:47:28.594-05:006042This is the kind of analysis that makes me won...6042This is the kind of analysis that makes me wonder about academics.<br /><br />Your graph lumps all kinds of spending together. The spending you are thinking might become permanent is discretionary non-military spending, but your graph includes everything domestic, military, and non-discretionary. In 2012, that was about $40B over the 2008 level. That is a 2.4% annualized increase per year – a very modest level of growth. In real dollars, discretionary non-defense spending in 2013 will be almost identical to 2008 ($472B vs 468 B). So much for your permanent spending increase! Indeed, spending controls are even better than this picture suggests because the biggest increase is spending for military veterans – something that is only tenuously “discretionary”. Without that cost, discretionary spending in real dollars is falling.<br /> <br />Almost all of the changes you report in your graph are from increased costs from entitlements and military operations – basically the costs from the Bush recession and wars.<br /><br />In short, your original prediction is now shown to be wrong and your current analysis is shown to be biased and faulty. <br /><br />Crowing that “I told you so” requires some confirmation – unless you are looking for a seat on Hannity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com